Psychological Assessment 2011, Vol. 23, No. 1, 108-124 © 2010 American Psychological Association 1040-3590/10/$ 12.00 DOI: 10.1037/aOO21146 Assessing the Basic Traits Associated With Psychopathy: Development and Validation of the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment Donald R. Lynam Purdue University Eric T. Gaughan and Joshua D. Miller University of Georgia Drew J. Miller Purdue University Stephanie Mullins-Sweatt Oklahoma State University Thomas A. Widiger University of Kentucky A new self-report assessment of the basic traits of psychopathy was developed with a general trait model of personality (five-factor model [FFM]) as a framework. Scales were written to assess maladaptive variants of the 18 FFM traits that are robustly related to psychopathy across a variety of perspectives including empirical correlations, expert ratings, and translations of extant assessments. Across 3 inde- pendent undergraduate samples (N = 210-354), the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment (EPA) scales proved to be internally consistent and unidimensional, and were strongly related to the original FFM scales from which they were derived (mean convergent r = .66). The EPA scales also demonstrated substantial incremental validity in the prediction of existing psychopathy measures over their FFM counterparts. When summed to form a psychopathy total score, the EPA was substantially correlated with 3 commonly used psychopathy measures (mean r = .81). Finally, in a small male forensic sample (N = 70), the EPA was significantly correlated with scores on a widely used self-report psychopathy measure, disciplinary infractions, alcohol use, and antisocial behavior. The EPA provides an opportunity to examine psychopathy and its nomological network through smaller, more basic units of personality rather than by scales or factors that blend these elements. Keywords: psychopathy, personality, assessment, five-factor model, antisocial behavior The construct of psychopathy has a rich historical tradition. At one time, the term psychopath referred to all personality disorders, as in Schneider's (1923) influential nomenclature of 10 distinct psychopathic personalities; only his affectionless psychopathic is similar to the current conceptualization. It was subsequent to the work of Schneider and following primarily upon the seminal description provided by Cleckley (1941) that the term psychopath became increasingly confined to the particular personality disorder studied so widely today. Despite not being included in the official diagnostic nomenclature, psychopathy is one of the most studied forms of personality disorder. For example, a PsycINFO search for articles published in peer-reviewed journals with psychopathy as a word in the title resulted in 753 citations. In comparison, a search This article was published Online First December 20, 2010. Donald R. Lynam and Drew J. Miller, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University; Eric T. Gaughan and Joshua D. Miller, Department of Psychology, University of Georgia; Stephanie Mullins- Sweat, Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University; Thomas A. Widiger, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Donald R. Lynam, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, 703 Third Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2081. E-mail; dlynam® psych.purdue.edu for peer-reviewed publications with the words antisocial person- ality disorder, an officially recognized personality disorder, re- sulted in only 274 citations. One of the main developments that allowed the expansion of research on psychopathy was the creation of a reliable and valid assessment tool; the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL) and its revision (Hare, 2003; Hare & Neumann, 2008). This development proceeded through a number of stages. The initial measure was simply a 7-point global clinical rating designed to indicate how consistent an individual's personality and behavior were with Cleckley's description (Hare & Cox, 1978). Because determinants of the ratings were difficult to identify and operationalize. Hare and colleagues turned to altemative approaches including an at- tempt to operationalize Cleckley's 16 characteristics (Hare, 1980). Ultimately, the authors turned to a broader conceptualization of psychopathy than Cleckley's (1941), drawing as well on work by McCord and McCord (1964), Craft (1965), Karpman (1961), and Buss (1966), and on the basis of their review of this literature settled on the 20 items of the PCL (Hare, 2003; Hare & Neumann, 2008). A considerable body of empirical literature surrounding the revised PCL (PCL-R) has since developed (Hare & Neumann, 2008; Patrick, 2006). However, because the PCL-R is scored by a rater following an interview and a review of file information, its 108