Abstract
We critique Roy et al.'s (2020; this issue) approach to characterizing the item-level factor structure of the three scales of the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM), in light of the manner in which the TriPM scales were developed, the purposes they were designed to serve, and the growing body of evidence supporting their construct validity. We focus on three major points: (1) The TriPM scales are item-based factor scales - i.e., item sets designed to index broad factors of larger multi-scale (parent) inventories; (2) item-level structural analysis can be useful for representing broad dimensions tapped by such scales, but it cannot be expected to provide an accurate picture of narrower subdimensions (facets) assessed by their parent inventories; and (3) it is critical to consider the nomological networks of the TriPM scales (and other triarchic scale measures) in appraising their effectiveness as operationalizations of the triarchic model constructs. We illustrate the first and second of these points by applying Roy et al.'s analytic approach to the trait scales of the NEO-FFI, which were developed to index broad personality dimensions of the multi-scale NEO-PI-R. We address the third point with reference to the growing body of literature supporting the construct validity of the TriPM scales and demonstrating their utility for advancing an integrative understanding of psychopathy.