Newman Joseph P, Malterer Melanie B
University of Wisconsin - Madison.
Pers Individ Dif. 2009 May 1;46(7):673-677. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.037.
Citing a dearth of research on the Carver and White (1994) BIS scale in offender samples, its limited coverage of the psychological functions attributed to the BIS construct, and the fact that the BIS scale has a stronger association with measures of negative emotionality than with fear sensitivity, Poythress, Edens, Landfield, Lilienfeld, Skeem, and Douglas (2008) "recommend a moratorium on the use of the BIS scale to test Lykken's theory of primary psychopathy" (p. 269). In this response, we: 1) present evidence that supports the reliability and validity of the BIS scale in a large offender sample involving multiple prison sites, 2) challenge unfounded assertions regarding the inadequate coverage of the BIS, 3) propose that the problems cited by Poythress et al. are as much a function of Lykken's model as Carver and White's measure, and 4) conclude that further research is needed to clarify the distinction between primary and secondary psychopathy and that the BIS/BAS scales may play a valuable role in this regard.
鉴于对罪犯样本中卡弗和怀特（1994）的行为抑制系统（BIS）量表的研究匮乏，该量表对归因于行为抑制系统结构的心理功能覆盖有限，以及行为抑制系统量表与消极情绪测量的关联强于与恐惧敏感性测量的关联，波伊斯雷斯、伊登斯、兰德菲尔德、利林费尔德、斯基姆和道格拉斯（2008）“建议暂停使用行为抑制系统量表来检验莱肯的原发性精神病态理论”（第269页）。在本回应中，我们：1）展示了支持行为抑制系统量表在涉及多个监狱地点的大型罪犯样本中的信度和效度的证据，2）对关于行为抑制系统覆盖不足的毫无根据的断言提出质疑，3）提出波伊斯雷斯等人所提及的问题在很大程度上是莱肯模型的作用，而非卡弗和怀特的测量方法的问题，4）得出结论，需要进一步研究以厘清原发性和继发性精神病态之间的区别，并且行为抑制系统/行为激活系统量表在这方面可能发挥重要作用。
