Assessment of Psychopathy: Addressing Myths, Misconceptions, and Fallacies

Abstract

Psychopathy is a contentious construct with respect to both theory and operationalization. A number of myths, misconceptions, and fallacies regarding the assessment of psychopathy hinder scientific progress and impede this construct’s applied consideration across settings and contexts. We review these widespread erroneous ideas with an eye to guiding the reader towards an improved understanding of scientifically-informed means of conceptualizing and applying psychopathy assessment. More specifically, we consider whether “gold standards” exist for psychopathy measurement, differing psychopathy measures capture the same underlying subdimensions, and the DSM-5 diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder affords an adequate operationalization of psychopathy. We also consider the relevance of the controversial construct of boldness to psychopathy. Moreover, we discuss whether it is scientifically acceptable to rely on total psychopathy scores or use cut scores for a “psychopathy diagnosis.” In light of psychopathy being an important criminal justice construct, we ask whether the Psychopathy Checklist – Revised is an unparalleled measure of violent recidivism, as numerous scholars have asserted. We conclude by considering the appropriateness for various assessment modalities (self-report, informant-reports, and brief forms) for psychopathy measurement.