MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115409343 · doi:10.1177/1073191120980063

Psychopathic Expression From Early to Late Adulthood: An Item Response Theory Analysis of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised

2020· article· en· W3115409343 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. Sebastian Baglole, Siny Tsang, Robert D. Hare, Adelle E. Forth

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychopathyPsychopathy ChecklistPsychologyAntisocial personality disorderTraitItem response theoryDifferential item functioningYoung adultClinical psychologyMeasurement invarianceDevelopmental psychologyInterpersonal communicationPoison controlPsychometricsInjury preventionPersonalitySocial psychologyStructural equation modelingConfirmatory factor analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several investigators have assessed the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R) for invariance across offender ethnicities and in correctional and forensic–psychiatric contexts. Yet we do not know whether, or to what extent, item properties among male offenders vary throughout adulthood. With a combined sample of PCL-R data on offenders from Canada and the United States ( N = 4,820), we measured item properties for offenders in age groups of Early (18-30 years old), Middle (31-49 years old), and Late (50+ years old) adulthood. Nine items showed differential item functioning across age group comparisons. Among the Early group, the PCL-R Interpersonal and Affective traits were most informative for measuring the latent trait of psychopathy. Among the Late group, the PCL-R Lifestyle and Antisocial items were most informative for the latent trait. These differences in item information illustrate how psychopathy manifests in male offenders throughout adulthood.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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