Pilar Rico-Bordera, Manuel Galán, David Pineda, José A Piqueras
{"title":"20年后对黑暗特征的非自我报告评估:系统回顾。","authors":"Pilar Rico-Bordera, Manuel Galán, David Pineda, José A Piqueras","doi":"10.1177/00332941251363486","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Self-report has historically been considered the \"gold standard\" for personality assessment due to its widespread use. However, its use has been questioned in recent years, especially in contexts such as forensic psychology, due to measurement biases. The purpose of this study was to systematically identify and categorize non-self-report-based instruments used to assess the Dark Tetrad traits or constructs empirically or theoretically associated with them. A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and Scopus databases, and 189 studies were included, which reported more than 250 tools. To obtain a joint view of the results, a classification into 6 categories was proposed following Ortner's and Proyer's classification and adding two more categories after reviewing the literature, called Objective Personality Measures (OPMs). These results provide authors with a wide range of tools they could include in their studies to obtain more reliable results when dealing with self-report biases because the best assessment will always combine different measurement methods. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to continue using in their studies the non-self-report-based tools collected in this review, to continue designing new ones, and to provide more validity results.</p>","PeriodicalId":21149,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Reports","volume":" ","pages":"332941251363486"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards the Non-Self-Reported Assessment of the Dark Traits 20 Years Later: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Pilar Rico-Bordera, Manuel Galán, David Pineda, José A Piqueras\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00332941251363486\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Self-report has historically been considered the \\\"gold standard\\\" for personality assessment due to its widespread use. However, its use has been questioned in recent years, especially in contexts such as forensic psychology, due to measurement biases. The purpose of this study was to systematically identify and categorize non-self-report-based instruments used to assess the Dark Tetrad traits or constructs empirically or theoretically associated with them. A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and Scopus databases, and 189 studies were included, which reported more than 250 tools. To obtain a joint view of the results, a classification into 6 categories was proposed following Ortner's and Proyer's classification and adding two more categories after reviewing the literature, called Objective Personality Measures (OPMs). These results provide authors with a wide range of tools they could include in their studies to obtain more reliable results when dealing with self-report biases because the best assessment will always combine different measurement methods. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to continue using in their studies the non-self-report-based tools collected in this review, to continue designing new ones, and to provide more validity results.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21149,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Reports\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"332941251363486\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941251363486\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Reports","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941251363486","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
由于自我报告的广泛使用,它一直被认为是人格评估的“黄金标准”。然而,近年来,由于测量偏差,它的使用受到质疑,特别是在法医心理学等背景下。本研究的目的是系统地识别和分类用于评估黑暗四分体特征或与之相关的经验或理论结构的非自我报告为基础的工具。在PubMed、PsycInfo、Web of Science和Scopus数据库中进行了系统综述,纳入了189项研究,其中报告了250多种工具。为了获得对结果的共同看法,在Ortner和Proyer的分类之后,提出了6个类别,并在回顾文献后增加了两个类别,称为客观人格测量(OPMs)。这些结果为作者提供了广泛的工具,他们可以包括在他们的研究中,以获得更可靠的结果,当处理自我报告偏差时,因为最好的评估总是结合不同的测量方法。因此,我们鼓励研究人员在他们的研究中继续使用本综述中收集的非自我报告为基础的工具,继续设计新的工具,并提供更多的效度结果。
Towards the Non-Self-Reported Assessment of the Dark Traits 20 Years Later: A Systematic Review.
Self-report has historically been considered the "gold standard" for personality assessment due to its widespread use. However, its use has been questioned in recent years, especially in contexts such as forensic psychology, due to measurement biases. The purpose of this study was to systematically identify and categorize non-self-report-based instruments used to assess the Dark Tetrad traits or constructs empirically or theoretically associated with them. A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and Scopus databases, and 189 studies were included, which reported more than 250 tools. To obtain a joint view of the results, a classification into 6 categories was proposed following Ortner's and Proyer's classification and adding two more categories after reviewing the literature, called Objective Personality Measures (OPMs). These results provide authors with a wide range of tools they could include in their studies to obtain more reliable results when dealing with self-report biases because the best assessment will always combine different measurement methods. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to continue using in their studies the non-self-report-based tools collected in this review, to continue designing new ones, and to provide more validity results.