Department of Psychology and Social Behavior, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-7085, USA.
Psychol Assess. 2010 Jun;22(2):433-45. doi: 10.1037/a0008512.
The development of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; R. D. Hare, 2003) has fueled intense clinical interest in the construct of psychopathy. Unfortunately, a side effect of this interest has been conceptual confusion and, in particular, the conflating of measures with constructs. Indeed, the field is in danger of equating the PCL-R with the theoretical construct of psychopathy. A key point in the debate is whether criminal behavior is a central component, or mere downstream correlate, of psychopathy. In this article, the authors present conceptual directions for resolving this debate. First, factor analysis of PCL-R items in a theoretical vacuum cannot reveal the essence of psychopathy. Second, a myth about the PCL-R and its relation to violence must be examined to avoid the view that psychopathy is merely a violent variant of antisocial personality disorder. Third, a formal, iterative process between theory development and empirical validation must be adopted. Fundamentally, constructs and measures must be recognized as separate entities, and neither reified. Applying such principles to the current state of the field, the authors believe the evidence favors viewing criminal behavior as a correlate, not a component, of psychopathy.
《精神变态检查表修订版》(PCL-R;R.D.黑尔,2003 年)的发展激发了人们对精神变态这一概念的浓厚临床兴趣。不幸的是,这种兴趣的一个副作用是概念上的混淆,特别是将测量方法与结构混淆。事实上,该领域有将 PCL-R 与精神变态的理论结构等同起来的危险。争论的一个关键点是,犯罪行为是精神变态的核心组成部分,还是仅仅是其下游相关因素。在本文中,作者提出了一些概念性的方向来解决这一争论。首先,在理论真空下对 PCL-R 项目进行因子分析并不能揭示精神变态的本质。其次,必须检验关于 PCL-R 及其与暴力关系的一个神话,以避免将精神变态仅仅视为反社会人格障碍的暴力变体的观点。第三,必须采用理论发展和实证验证之间的正式迭代过程。从根本上说,必须认识到结构和措施是分开的实体,而不是具体化的。将这些原则应用于当前的领域状态,作者认为,证据支持将犯罪行为视为精神变态的相关因素,而不是其组成部分。