This has led some authors to postulate that behavioural items or criteria are useful for predicting violent behaviour (Skeem, Mulve y et al., 2003 Cooke, Michie, & Skeem, 2007), but lack diagnostic value.
This approach has been corroborated by empirical data linking crimi n al behaviour with behavioural items on the PCL-R (delinquency and lifestyle), but not with those aspects which are traditionally associated to psychopathy, that is, affective and interpersonal ones (Eisenbarth, Osterheider, Nedopil, & Stadtland, 2012 Hodges & Heilbrun, 2009 Walters & Heilbrun, 2010 Þukauskienë, Laurinavièius, & Èësnienë, 2010). On the one hand, the traditional European approach grounds its definition of psychopathy on emotional and interpersonal aspects and rejects the notion that criminal behaviour is a core feature of psychopathic disorder – instead it is regarded as a secondary symptom or effect comparable to other contingencies such as illicit substance abuse (Cooke et al., 2004 Skeem, Mulvey, & Grisso, 2003). Research in psychopathy has been enmeshed in controversy since its very inception owing to the rivalry between two theoretical approaches opposed as to the definition and measurement of the construct itself (Cooke, Michie, Hart, & Clark, 2004 Hare & Neumann, 2005). Psychopathy is a construct characterized by affective, interpersonal, and behavioural traits (Morrissey et al., 2010) associated to irresponsible and impulsive behaviour, contempt for and violation of social norms (Flores-Mendoza, Silva-Alvarenga, Herrero, & Abad, 2008), deep affective deficits, and a lack of respect for the rights of others (García et al., 2008 Hare, 1996, 2003 Torrubia, Poy, Moltó, Grayston, & Corral, 2010 Vien & Beech, 2006). The results are discussed in terms of their implications for theoretical models of psychopathy, decision-making, prison classification and intervention, and prevention. The scale resulting from the three-factor hierarchical model with testlets (13 items) classified psychopathy significantly higher than the original 20-item scale. 86), and the three-factor model with testlets was a reasonable fit for the data (CFI =.
The results revealed that the two-factor correlational, three-factor hierarchical without testlets, four-factor correlational and hierarchical, and unidimensional models were a poor fit for the data (CFI ≤. Two trained and experienced independent raters scored 197 prisoners from the Villabona Penitentiary (Asturias, Spain), age range 21 to 73 years ( M = 36.0, SD = 9.7), of whom 60.12% were reoffenders and 73% had committed violent crimes. The aim of this study was to determine which of the factorial solutions proposed for the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) of two, three, four factors, and unidimensional fitted best the data. Se discuten las implicaciones de los resultados para los modelos teóricos de la psicopatía, la toma de decisiones, clasificación e intervención penitenciaria, y la prevención. La escala resultante del modelo de tres factores con testlets (13 ítems) mostró un poder de clasificación de la psicopatía significativamente superior al de la escala original (20 ítems). 86) y un ajuste razonable del modelo jerárquico de tres factores con testlets (CFI =.
Los resultados mostraron que los modelos unidimensional, correlacional de 2 factores, jerárquico de 3 factores sin testlest y correlacional y jerárquico de 4 factores, presentaban un pobre ajuste con los datos (CFI ≤. Para ello, dos evaluadores entrenados y con experiencia evaluaron de forma independiente a 197 internos en la prisión Villabona (Asturias, España), con edades comprendidas entre los 21 y los 73 años ( M = 36.0, DT = 9.7), de los cuales el 60.12% eran reincidentes y el 73% había cometido delitos violentos. Se diseñó un estudio con el objetivo de conocer cuál de las soluciones factoriales propuestas para la Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) de dos, tres y cuatro factores y unidimensional era la que presentaba mejor ajuste a los datos.
0 kommentar(er)
