 Hare Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCLR)  Hare (1991)  20  Factors; 1) Callous/ manipulative interpersonal style 2) Antisocial action  Harpur, Hare & Hakstian, 1989.  To assess interrater reliability, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979) were calculated for subsamples of subjects rated by more than one rat er (seesample descriptions for №). They ranged from .78 to .94 (M = .86) for a single rating and from .87 to .97 (M = .93) for the average of two ratings (computations based on the SpearmanBrown Prophecy Formula).2 Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, which ranged from .85 to .89 (M = .88), and by the mean interitem correlation, which ranged from .23 to .30 (M = .27). These results indicate that the PCLR, like the PCL, Can be considered a homogeneous, uni dimensional scale (Harpur et al., 1989)—Hare, Harpur, Hakstian, Forth, Hart, & Newman, 1990.  The associations found between the convergent validity measures and the PCL–R when it was used dimensionally support the validity of the instrument. As predicted, onPsychoticism, SRPS, SMAST, MPQConstraint, and SO scale scores were significantly related to PCL–R scores. Overall, the pattern of results for both the Caucasian and African American women provided support for the convergent validity of the PCL–R in this sample—Vitale, Smith, Brinkley, & Newman, 2002. 
 Levenson’s selfreport psychopathy scale (SRPS)  Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick (1995).  26  1. Primary psychopathy 2. Secondary psychopathy  Cronbach’s alphas for the total sample were .85 for the total SRPS, .83 for SRPS factor 1 and .69 for SRPS factor 2—Brinkley, Schmitt, Smith, & Newman, 2000.  The SRPS and the PCLR were significantly correlated and both showed similar patterns of correlations to measures of substance abuse and criminal versatility. SRPS was predictive of performance of a passive avoidance task—Brinkley, Schmitt, Smith, & Newman, 2000. 
 Psychopathic Personality Inventory Revised (PPIR)  Lilienfeld & Widows, (2005). 

 Internal consistency is adequate for the PPIR Total score and the PPIR Content scale scores, with coefficient alpha ranging from .78  .92 for the community/college sample. For the offender sample, internal consistency estimates for the Total and Content scale scores ranged from .72  .84—Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005  Evidence of construct validity was obtained via significant correlations between the PPIR and selfreport measures of pathological and nonpathological personality functioning, DSMIV Antisocial Personality Disorder, interpersonal problems, sensationseeking, substance use, and offense variables— Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005 
 The Elemental Psychopathy Assessment  Lynam, Gaughan, Miller, Miller, Mullins Sweatt, & Widiger (2011)  299  Antagonism: 1) Distrust 2) Manipulation 3) Selfcenteredness 4) Opposition 5) Arrogance 6) Callousness Conscientiousness : 1) Disobliged 2) Impersistence 3) Rashness Extraversion: 1) Coldness 2) Dominance 3) ThrillSeeking Neuroticism: 1) Unconcern 2) Anger 3) SelfContentment 4) SelfAssurance 5) Urgency 6) Invulnerablility  Final scales were fairly reliable. Seventeen of the 18 scales had alpha coefficients above .7; 14 of these were above .8. The average alpha for the 18 scales was .81. The scales were also fairly homogeneous. Average interitem correlations ranged from .16 for Arrogance to .48 for Dominance, with an average of .34. Average itemtotal correlations ranged from .31 for Arrogance to .62 for ThrillSeeking, with an average of .51.  Concurrent validity was shown by correlations with other selfreport psychopathy measures; SRP, LSRP, PPIR. The measure contains two validity scales: Infrequency scale, and a Too Good to Be True scale. It has an alpha level of .95. 