On 2016 Oct 19, Richard Kunert commented:

The central claim of this paper is not supported by the numbers reported in the paper.

p. 142:

Participants exhibited the core personality features of psychopathy (Factor 1) to a greater extent than the core behavioral features of psychopathy (Factor 2).

In contradiction to this central claim of the paper, Factor 2 scores at 7.1 (the behavioural features of psychopathy) are actually higher than the Factor 1 scores at 5.2 (the personality features of psychopathy). The numbers tell the exactly opposite story to the words.

The numbers are given twice in the paper making a typo unlikely (p. 138 and p. 139). Adjusting the scores for the maxima of the scales that they are from (factor 1 x/xmax = 0.352 < factor 2 x/xmax=0.394) or the sample maximum (factor 1 x/xmaxobtained = 0.433 < factor 2 x/xmaxobtained = 0.44375) makes no difference. No outlier rejection is mentioned in the paper.

In sum, it appears as if DeMatteo and his co-authors interpret their numbers in a way which makes intuitive sense but which is in direct contradiction to their own data.

This issue was first raised publicly on Brain's Idea. The first author (DeMatteo) and the editor of the journal (Ewing) have been invited to respond via e-mail on 12/8/2016. Now, more than two months later, there is still no response.

On 2016 Oct 19, Richard Kunert commented:

The central claim of this paper is not supported by the numbers reported in the paper.

p. 142:

Participants exhibited the core personality features of psychopathy (Factor 1) to a greater extent than the core behavioral features of psychopathy (Factor 2).

In contradiction to this central claim of the paper, Factor 2 scores at 7.1 (the behavioural features of psychopathy) are actually higher than the Factor 1 scores at 5.2 (the personality features of psychopathy). The numbers tell the exactly opposite story to the words.

The numbers are given twice in the paper making a typo unlikely (p. 138 and p. 139). Adjusting the scores for the maxima of the scales that they are from (factor 1 x/xmax = 0.352 < factor 2 x/xmax=0.394) or the sample maximum (factor 1 x/xmaxobtained = 0.433 < factor 2 x/xmaxobtained = 0.44375) makes no difference. No outlier rejection is mentioned in the paper.

In sum, it appears as if DeMatteo and his co-authors interpret their numbers in a way which makes intuitive sense but which is in direct contradiction to their own data.

This issue was first raised publicly on Brain's Idea. The first author (DeMatteo) and the editor of the journal (Ewing) have been invited to respond via e-mail on 12/8/2016. Now, more than two months later, there is still no response.