MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406406228 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1469970

Measuring the dark triad: a meta-analytical SEM study of two prominent short scales

2025· review· en· W4406406228 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lukas A. Knitter, Jerome Hoffmann, Michael Eid, Tobias Koch

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsDark triadMachiavellianismPsychologyPsychopathyReliability (semiconductor)Big Five personality traitsDiscriminant validityTraitCognitive psychologyTriad (sociology)PersonalityPsychometricsSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research examines the factor structure and psychometric properties of two well-known Dark Triad personality trait questionnaires: the Short Dark Triad (SD3) and the Dirty Dozen (DD). By analyzing data from 11 (SD3) and 5 (DD) carefully selected studies in the United States and Canada, this meta-analysis uncovers unexpected correlations among questionnaire items, challenging existing assumptions. The study employs a two-stage structural equation modeling approach to evaluate various measurement models. Conventional models, such as the correlated factor and orthogonal bifactor models, fail to explain the irregular correlations. For Dirty Dozen items, a bifactor-(S·I-1) model is more suitable than the orthogonal bifactor model, significantly affecting interpretation. On the other hand, the complex structure of the SD3 necessitates item revision to enhance reliability, discriminant validity, and predictive validity. These findings emphasize the need for refining and clarifying concepts in item revision. Furthermore, the research highlights the overlap between Machiavellianism and psychopathy, particularly in relation to revenge-related items, suggesting the need for differentiation between these traits or the identification of distinct core characteristics.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.274
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicPersonality Traits and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207