Criminal behaviour and mental health : CBMH · 2005
How many factors are there on the PICTS?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Walters Glenn D
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Several different factor models have been proposed for the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS), an 80-item self-report measure designed to assess thinking styles believed to maintain a criminal lifestyle.
AIMS: To perform further tests on the factor structure with two new samples, and exploit their divergent characteristics to test for generalizability of the result.
METHOD: A series of factor analyses were performed on the PICTS, completed by two groups of offenders: 519 male prisoners and 227 female prisoners, to determine whether a one-factor, two-factor, four-factor or eight-factor model best fitted the data.
RESULTS: The two-factor model was superior to the one-factor model, and the four- factor model was superior to both. An eight-factor model, the factors being identical to the original eight PICTS thinking style scales (Mollification, Cutoff, Entitlement, Power Orientation, Sentimentality, Superoptimism, Cognitive Indolence, Discontinuity), achieved a significantly better fit than any of the other models in the male sample; the four and eight factor models were not significantly different among the women.
DISCUSSION: Modest to moderate fit was attained with the two-, four- and eight-factor models when the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was utilized but not when the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) was applied. It is concluded that the factor structure of the PICTS consists of two primary or major factors (problem avoidance, self-assertion/deception) and two secondary or minor factors (interpersonal hostility, denial of harm). The four-factor model seems likely to be generalizable across divergent offender samples.
AIMS: To perform further tests on the factor structure with two new samples, and exploit their divergent characteristics to test for generalizability of the result.
METHOD: A series of factor analyses were performed on the PICTS, completed by two groups of offenders: 519 male prisoners and 227 female prisoners, to determine whether a one-factor, two-factor, four-factor or eight-factor model best fitted the data.
RESULTS: The two-factor model was superior to the one-factor model, and the four- factor model was superior to both. An eight-factor model, the factors being identical to the original eight PICTS thinking style scales (Mollification, Cutoff, Entitlement, Power Orientation, Sentimentality, Superoptimism, Cognitive Indolence, Discontinuity), achieved a significantly better fit than any of the other models in the male sample; the four and eight factor models were not significantly different among the women.
DISCUSSION: Modest to moderate fit was attained with the two-, four- and eight-factor models when the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was utilized but not when the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) was applied. It is concluded that the factor structure of the PICTS consists of two primary or major factors (problem avoidance, self-assertion/deception) and two secondary or minor factors (interpersonal hostility, denial of harm). The four-factor model seems likely to be generalizable across divergent offender samples.