Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale

The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy scale (LSRP) is a 26-item, 4-point Likert scale, self-report inventory to measure primary and secondary psychopathy in non-institutionalised populations. It was developed in 1995 by Michael R. Levenson, Kent A. Kiehl and Cory M. Fitzpatrick. The scale was created for the purpose of conducting a psychological study examining antisocial disposition among a sample of 487 undergraduate students attending psychology classes at the University of California, Davis.[1]

Primary and Secondary Psychopathy

Background

Benjamin Karpman first theorised that psychopathy should be divided into two clinical subtypes in 1941.[2] He believed that psychopathy presented itself in either a symptomatic or idiopathic manner. Symptomatic psychopathy referred to an individual who would exhibit psychopathic traits usually as a result of an underlying psychoneurosis or character neurosis. Idiopathic psychopathy, on the other hand, presented itself without a cause and rarely reacted to treatment. [3] Karpman's theory has helped researchers to identify two subgroups of those who display psychopathic traits. These were subsequently labelled as primary and secondary psychopaths.[4]

Primary Psychopathy

The subtype known as "primary" psychopathy refers to individuals who are completely rational, lack anxiety and have high levels of interpersonal charm. Whilst these behaviours appear incredibly adaptive, primary psychopaths are also prone to dysfunctional and pathological traits such as an inability to learn from past mistakes and a lack of responsibility.[4]

Secondary Psychopathy

"Secondary" psychopaths are individuals not dissimilar to primary psychopaths in the sense that they still share many of the same characteristics and traits. However, unlike the primary psychopath, the secondary psychopath is more likely to suffer from intense emotional arousal and psychological issues. As well as this, research conducted on adult psychopaths has suggested that secondary psychopaths are more prone to participate in drug abuse, suicide and interpersonal aggression. Overall, what differentiates secondary psychopaths from primary psychopaths is their destructive behaviour as well an increased reactivity and impulsivity and an inability to control their emotions effectively.[4]

Evaluation

Studies have supported the existence of these two subgroups. For example, after a questionnaire assessing personality was distributed to 96 male psychopathic male prisoners, the researchers conducting the study concluded the best-fitting model for the differences in personality was two separate groups. One group was labelled "emotionally stable psychopaths" and the other was labelled "aggressive psychopaths". The aggressive psychopaths were more emotionally reactive and lacked control whereas the emotionally stable psychopaths had high levels of achievement and social skills and low levels of stress reaction. [5]

Development and Scoring

The LSRP is based on Robert D. Hare's diagnostic Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) and consists of 26 statements which participants must decide their attitudes towards using a 4-point Likert scale ("disagree strongly", "disagree somewhat", "agree somewhat" and "agree strongly"). Seven of the items were reversed to reduce response bias.[6]

A factor analysis was initially conducted on the items in the LSRP and two factors (primary and secondary psychopathy) were derived from the scale.[6]16 of the statements from the scale determined primary psychopathy and the remaining 10 determined secondary psychopathy. The statements that were attributed to primary psychopathy were more to do with manipulation and a lack of empathy whereas the statements attributed to secondary psychopathy were focused on behavioural issues.[1]:152–153

Based on the results of the initial study, the following thresholds for the results were established:

  • 0-48: Non-psychopathic group
  • 49-57: Mixed group
  • ≥58: Psychopathic group[6]

Limitations

Validity

Construct validity

The LSRP intends to measure the same constructs as the PCL-R. Significant correlations suggest that the LSRP does correlate with the PCL-R for both factors of psychopathy. However, these correlations were small to moderate so suggest that the LSRP and PCL-R are measuring somewhat different constructs.[6]:1035

Internal validity

The LSRP suffers much of the same problems as other self-reported data. As the participant is completing the form themselves, they are more likely to be subject to biases that can change how they answer questions and thus jeopardise the internal validity of the data. An example of such is the recall bias in which participants must recall what they believe to be relevant information to complete the self-report. However, without the presence of an interviewer who is able to guide the participants thought process, the participant may be using incorrect information that they called upon to answer a question. The potential for this problem is much higher in self-reported data than interviews.[7]

The cognitive burden of self-reported data is also higher than interviews. The LSRP, being a visual questionnaire, requires literacy skills, a lack of visual impairment and ability to use your hands as well as the ability to follow instructions. Compared to interviews, this increased cognitive burden could result in a lower quality of data.[7]:281–282

External validity

To create the LSRP, Levenson et al. only used undergraduate students studying psychology at a specific university. This is an example of selection bias and is likely to have negative implications for the external validity of the scale as the wider population does not consist of only undergraduate students.[8] The development of the LSRP also used a WEIRD sample. This refers to a sample from a western, educated, industrialised, rich, democratic society. The problem with this is that due to the restricted sample, the LSRP may not be generalisable to the other 88% of the population who do not live in WEIRD societies, once again decreasing the external validity of the scale. [9]

Reliability

Internal consistency reliability

Findings on the internal consistency reliability of the LSRP are mixed. A study in 2007 found Cronbach's alpha and mean interitem correlations were sufficient to determine good internal consistency reliability for the total LSRP score as well as the subgroup scores.[10] However, a slightly later study found that the reliability of the items in the LSRP was low and attributed this to a few items in the scale. Once these items were removed, reliability improved. [11]

References
  1. Levenson, Michael R.; Kiehl, Kent A.; Fitzpatrick, Cory M. (1995). "Assessing Psychopathic Attributes in a Noninstitutionalized Population". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 68 (1): 151–152. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.151.
  2. Karpman, Ben (1941). "On the need of separating psychopathy into two distinct clinical types: the symptomatic and the idiopathic". Journal of Criminal Psychopathology. 3: 112–137. Retrieved 14 April 2020.
  3. Arieti, Silvano (October 1963). "Psychopathic personality: Some Views on Its Psychopathology and Psychodynamics". Comprehensive Psychiatry. 4 (5): 301–303. doi:10.1016/S0010-440X(63)80056-5. PMID 14055428.
  4. Vaughn, Michael G.; Edens, John F.; Howard, Matthew O.; Smith, Shannon Toney (July 2009). "An Investigation of Primary and Secondary Psychopathy in a Statewide Sample of Incarcerated Youth". Youth Violence and Juvenile Injustice. 7 (3): 173. doi:10.1177/1541204009333792.
  5. Hicks, Brian M.; Markon, Kristian E.; Patrick, Christopher J.; Krueger, Rober F.; Newman, Joseph P. (2004). "Identifying Psychopathy Subtypes on the Basis of Personality Structure". Psychological Assessment. 16 (3): 276–281. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.16.3.276. PMID 15456383.
  6. Brinkley, Chad A.; Schmitt, William A.; Smith, Steven S.; Newman, Joseph P. (28 September 2000). "Construct validation of a self-report psychopathy scale: does Levenson's self-report psychopathy scale measure the same constructs as Hare's psychopathy checklist-revised?". Personality and Individual Differences. 31 (7): 1025. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00178-1. Retrieved 11 April 2020.
  7. Bowling, Ann (3 May 2005). "Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality". Journal of Public Health. 27 (3): 287. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdi031. PMID 15870099. Retrieved 11 April 2020.
  8. Fritz, Kyra N.; Lim, Nicholas K. (2018). "Selection Bias". The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 1490–1491. ISBN 9781506326139. Retrieved 12 April 2020.
  9. Henrich, Joseph; Heine, Steven J.; Norenzayan, Ara (2010). "The weirdest people in the world?". Behavioural and Brain Sciences. 33 (2–3): 61–83, discussion 83-135. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X. PMID 20550733. Retrieved 12 April 2020.
  10. Falkenbach, Diana; Poythress, Norman; Falki, Marielle; Manchak, Sarah (December 2007). "Reliability and Validity of Two Self-Report Measures of Psychopathy". Assessment. 14 (4): 344–345. doi:10.1177/1073191107305612. PMID 17986652.
  11. Gummelt, Haley D.; Anestis, Joye C.; Carbonell, Joyce L. (December 2012). "Examining the Levenson Self Report Psychopathy Scale using a Graded Response Model". Personality and Individual Differences. 53 (8): 1002–1006. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.07.014. Retrieved 12 April 2020.


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.