20年后对黑暗特征的非自我报告评估:系统回顾。

IF 1.6 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological Reports
Psychological Reports PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
171
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信