The review was performed in two stages; the first concerning the development of new items development and Step 2 was intended to verify psychometric properties of the revised version of the dimension.

Step 1, focused on developing new items for the Impulsiveness dimension of IDCP, resulted in 430 new items related to 13 sentences listed as relevant for the dimension. The constructs extracted from the literature and highlighted as applicable to Impulsiveness dimension were Deceitfulness, Risk Taking, Irresponsibility and Impulsivity (Krueger et al., 2012); antisocial interpersonal and self-related impairment (APA, 2013); Psychopathy (Shedler & Westen, 2004); and antisocial, hypersexuality, insincerity, and impulsivity traits (Clark, 1990).

Following the development of the new items, we set out for analysis and independent selection of the best items. The pre-selection resulted in a set of 57 items and was based on criteria such as clarity and consistency in writing, explicit pathological content and traits not well represented in the original IDCP dimension. For the selection of the final composite items, we emphasize as our priority criterion the inclusion of items that was not well represented in the original version, which generated the exclusion of 19 items. Thus, the new version of the Impulsiveness dimension to be psychometrically tested was composed of 38 items plus 6 original items, grouped into five categories created by the authors: Inconsequence (8 original + 1 new), Irresponsibility (6 original + 3 new), Risk Taking (9 original + 2 new), Deceitfulness (9 original + 2 new), and Manipulation (6 original + 0 new). Two original items did not fit any category.

In sequence, we investigated the psychometric properties of the items pool, starting from the parallel analysis for polychoric variables, determining the maximum number of factors for the reviewed scale. We obtained four factors as maximum, with significant eigenvalues not randomly established and proceeded to the exploratory factor analysis with fit indices (E-SEM), forcing solutions of two to four factors using the Geomin oblique rotation and extraction method Maximum Likelihood Robust (MLR), considered as a robust method suitable for polychoric variables.

We evaluated the indices for the models and identified the six and five factors as the best fits models, respectively. The focus was given to these models and the factors interpretability was verified. The model with three factors showed the best interpretability, since the four-factor solution was not interpretable at all. The other solutions showed poor fit indices. Based on this, we chose the solution composed of three factors. The fit index obtained were X2/df = 2.54 (acceptable); RMSEA = .08 (acceptable); CFI = .57 (unsatisfactory); and SMR = .07 (good), based on Hooper, Coughlan, and Mullen (2008) for index criterion. Table 1 shows the factors loadings, the number of items held by factor, and internal consistency (Cronbach's α). The items that remained in each of the factors are bolded.

Table 1 Table 1 Exploratory factor analysis and internal consistency for the Impulsiveness dimension

The final version of the Impulsivity dimension is composed of eighteen items, seventeen new, distributed into three factors with six items each. Decisively, we sought to explicitly maintain a minimum number of items per factor, since the IDCP is composed of 12 dimensions and the test administration would be extensive and exhaustive to patients with clinical issues. Therefore, we discarded some items with suitable properties. In short, we used four criteria for exclusion of items, (a) the item prejudices or not favors the internal consistency of the factor, (b) little interpretative consistency to keep the item, (c) significant loads on more than one factor (difference less than .50 in intra-factors loadings), and (d) content redundancy among items in the same factor. It is important to note that, considering the actual structure of the dimension, the proposal is that the revised dimension has its original name changed to Inconsequence, reflecting in a more appropriate way the traits it covered. In this case, the first factor should also have its name changed to Impulsivity. Henceforward in this paper, the dimension will be referred as Inconsequence and its first factor as Impulsiveness.

Internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) was higher than .70 in all factors, including the increase of the coefficient after excluding some items. The coefficient for the total score was .89. After defining the internal structure of the instrument, we conducted analyses to correlate the factors and total score with the dimensions and facets of the NEO-PI-R and PID-5. Table 2 shows the results of the correlations between the factors and the total score of the new Inconsequence dimension and both dimensions of the NEO-PI-R.

Table 2 Table 2 Correlations between factors and total score of the new Inconsequence dimension and NEO-PI-R dimensions

*p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01.

The correlations between factors of the revised dimension varied from .46 to .54, and between factors and the new total score from .74 to .84. Regarding Neuroticism, the correlations were all positive and greater with Impulsiveness. The correlations found for Agreeableness, unlike the correlations with Neuroticism, were all negative, and the greater correlation was with Deceitfulness. The total score for the original dimension was also calculated, and the magnitudes of correlation were similar compared to total score revised. In sequence, Table 3 shows the correlations with the facets of Neuroticism and Agreeableness.

Table 3 Table 3 Correlations between Inconsequence dimension and NEO-PI-R and PID-5

Note. NTS = Inconsequence new total score; OTS = Impulsivity original total score.

*p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01.

In a broad perspective, the correlation between facets of Neuroticism and Agreeableness from NEO-PI-R with Impulsivity factors tended to be lower than the correlations with the facets of PID-5. Beside this, it appears that the total scores of the scale of IDCP, original and revised, were similar in most cases. Specifically regarding the facets of Neuroticism, the highest correlations were with Impulsivity, followed by Depression, in all cases. Regarding Agreeableness, the highest correlations were with Frankness and Complacency, and specifically with Trust for Deceitfulness. Related to PID-5, Callousness was similarly related to Inconsequence factors; Deceitfulness with the IDCP factor with equal name; Hostility, Impulsivity, and Irresponsibility more related to Impulsiveness; and Manipulativeness more related to Deceitfulness. Still, the new total score presented highest correlations with Impulsivity (positive, Neuroticism), Frankness (negative, Agreeableness), and Manipulativeness plus Deceitfulness (positive, PID-5).

In the first stage of the review, the items were grouped in five categories, resembling the literature (APA, 2013; Krueger et al., 2012) Inconsequence (reckless behavior with himself and others), Irresponsibility (uncommitted style), Risk Taking (tendency to accept and promote dangerous behavior), Deceitfulness (tendency to deceive and lie to other people), and Manipulation (manipulative behavior and style to achieve own goals). The selection of new items to be empirically tested was reviewed by judges (i.e., authors of this work), regarding the content, redundancy, and appropriateness of writing, which was aimed to improve the dimension with the inclusion of new items, replicating previous studies (Carvalho, de Souza et al., 2014; Carvalho, Sette et al., 2014).

Thirty-eight items were selected and applied to be psychometrically analyzed. As the three-factor solution was the most appropriate model, we moved on to selecting the best items, which resulted in 18 items composing the revised dimension. We observed similarity between the original total score and the new total score in the correlations with other tests, demonstrating that both reach comparable levels in the construct, focused on pathological manifestation; however, the inclusion of nine new psychometrically-selected items increased the scope and representation of the construct in the dimension. The data found by Carvalho and Primi (2015) did not indicate need for development of more pathological items for the Impulsivity dimension, indeed, it was one of the less endorsed IDCP dimensions. Considering that the original Impulsivity was composed only by 6 items, it is reasonable to assume that with three times the number of items, more of the construct will be measured, as the correlations suggests. Based on the actual structure of the dimension, the original name of the dimension was presently proposed to change to Inconsequence, reflecting in a more appropriate way the traits covered by the dimension; and the first factor’s name changed to Impulsiveness.

The Inconsequence three factors include characteristics such as (Impulsiveness) imprudence and rush in the decision-making process; risk taking, adventure and recklessness style, and danger-seeking (Risk Taking); and tendency to control people, deceive, and lie to reach own gain (Deceitfulness). The dimension coverage clearly increased, as the original dimension was more focused on risk taking (Carvalho & Primi, 2015) which is important to some personality functioning, mostly, antisocial (APA, 2013; Hopwood, Thomas, Markon, Wright, & Krueger, 2012; Samuel, Lynam, Widiger &, Ball, 2012). Moreover, the scale had a moderate, not higher, correlation between its factors, which is an important indicator of the possibility of Inconsequence profiles, which should be investigated in future studies.

Regarding the psychometric quality of the new dimension, we observed adequate internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s α) for the total score and three factors (Embretson, 1996; Nunnally, 1978), including cutoff for clinical assessment (American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014). Besides, the correlation pattern between Inconsequence factors set out the possibility of profiles establishment. For instance, two patients may show high scores in the Inconsequence dimension, but one of them presents high scores only in Impulsiveness and Risk Taking and the other in Risk Taking and Deceitfulness. The first is likely to exhibit reckless behavior towards others and himself, including dangerous behavior; the latter, despite also showing dangerous behavior, probably would demonstrate manipulative behaviors, such as lies and seduction. Moreover, the correlations of the factors were greater with the new total score in comparison to the original, suggesting that the construct coverage has been increased.

Relative to correlation with NEO-PI-R dimensions (Costa & McCrae, 2009), an important issue is the absence of dimensions and facets corresponding to the content considered encompassed by the Inconsequence dimension, which reduces the possibility of high magnitudes (r) of correlation. Moreover, unlike IDCP and PID-5, the NEO-PI-R dimensions were developed for evaluation of healthy personality traits (despite Neuroticism, that encompasses less adaptive ways, but was not designed to direct assess pathological levels of the constructs), which should also have an impact on the magnitude of the correlations. Specifically related to Neuroticism and Agreeableness dimensions, all the correlations were positive and negative (mainly with Deceitfulness), respectively, which is conceptually coherent since Neuroticism is related to maladaptive functioning and Agreeableness to care and concern about others’ feelings and wishes (Costa & McCrae, 2009). As expected (Carvalho & Primi, 2015), these data suggest that the Inconsequence dimension is more related to imprudent and reckless style with manipulative behavior.

Among the Neuroticism facets, the highest correlations were with Impulsivity, which is very consistent, considering that this facet assesses risk taking behavior and imprudent thought process to decision making (Costa & McCrae, 2009), like the IDCP reviewed dimension, Agreeableness facets also showed an interesting correlation pattern, as Frankness and Complacency presenting highest negative magnitudes, indicating that the Inconsequence factors are related to lying, manipulating, and not being submissive to others. Moreover, Trust was correlated to Deceitfulness, suggesting that the IDCP factor is related to deceive others.

In contrast, the correlations between Inconsequence factors and PID-5 facets were more expressive, which should be related to the point that these instruments also target to pathological levels, as IDCP. We observed that all Inconsequence factors correlated similarly with Callousness, indicating that the IDCP dimension is related to not being sensitive to others’ feelings and wishes, which is consistent with the latent construct of the IDCP dimension (Carvalho & Primi, 2015), especially considering the relationship of the dimension with antisocial functioning (APA, 2013). Deceitful from PID-5 correlated mainly with the factor with the same name, more than that, both are related to tendency in lying and deceive people (Krueger et al., 2012), which explains the correlation. Hostility was more correlated to Inconsequence, probably because this IDCP factor measured the lack of respected with others, even harming people around, which is typical in the antisocial style (APA, 2013), and refers to Hostility PID-5 dimension (Krueger et al., 2012). Likewise, Impulsivity and Irresponsibility from PID-5 showed highest correlations also with IDCP’s Impulsiveness, suggesting that this factor is related to imprudent and unwise behavior, with lack of wariness to decision making, which is expected for the Inconsequence dimension (Carvalho & Primi, 2015). As consistent as these results, the correlation between Manipulativeness and Deceitfulness suggests that the IDCP factor is mainly related to a tendency in lying and deceiving people (Krueger et al., 2012).

The data presented suggest evidence validity to the reviewed dimension. Considering the definition of Carvalho and Primi (2015) of the original Impulsivity dimension, the present data make clear that the reviewed dimension is more related to antisocial functioning (APA, 2013; Anderson et al., 2014; Coid & Ulrich, 2010), as the factors assess deceitfulness, irresponsibility, manipulativeness behavior, and risk taking. Future studies must look for the IDCP dimension more related to borderline functioning and, also, if some of the Inconsequence factor is related to this personality style.

We emphasize the importance of replication of the structure found in future research, and of the verification of the reliability indexes based on the levels of the participants in the latent construct, for example, using local reliability (Daniel, 1999). As a limitation of the study we highlight the characteristic of the sample, not including clinical group. Extending of investigations in clinical groups, with primacy of patients with personality disorders, will improve the applicability of the IDCP.