MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3030474376 · doi:10.1177/1073191120927786

Examining the Item-Level Structure of the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure: Sharpening Assessment of Psychopathy Constructs

2020· article· en· W3030474376 on OpenAlexafffund
Kasey Stanton, Matthew F. D. Brown, David Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersChildren's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba
KeywordsBoldnessPsychologyPsychopathyDisinhibitionContext (archaeology)ImpulsivityPersonalitySelf-report studyBig Five personality traitsDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM) has emerged as a widely used measure for assessing a three-trait model of disinhibition, meanness, and boldness. Building on recent psychometric work, we examined the TriPM’s item-level factor structure and correlates in both a clinically oriented community sample ( n = 700) and in undergraduates ( n = 527). Our results indicated a replicable three-factor structure generally corresponding with disinhibition, meanness, and boldness, although many items were not clear indicators of their assigned TriPM domain scales. Consequently, these dimensions may be better represented by Alternate Disinhibition (14 items), Boldness (13 items), and Meanness (8 items) domain scales. Additionally, we identified sets of items defining distinct Self-Assurance and Fearlessness dimensions within Boldness and Irresponsibility and Impulsivity dimensions within Disinhibition. We discuss these findings in the context of other recent studies examining the TriPM’s item-level structure, highlighting key future directions for sharpening measurement of the externalizing spectrum.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssessmentSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207