







































Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal  
Vol. 21 (2), August 2024, 118-133 

ISSN:  2598-6368(online); 1693-7236(print)                                                                 

       humanitas@psy.uad.ac.id             http://journal1.uad.ac.id/index.php/Humanitas                      

Validity of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD) test-Indonesian 

version 

Lalita Devi1, Lina Natalya1, Ide Bagus Siaputra1*, Peter Karl Jonason2,3 
1Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Surabaya, Indonesia 
2Institute of Psychology, University of Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński, Poland 
3Department of General Psychology, University of Padua, Italy 
Corresponding author: std@staff.ubaya.ac.id 

 

This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license. 

 

Introduction  

According to Paulhus and Williams (2002), dark personality refers to a cluster of traits 

associated with behavior considered contrary to social norms or socially aversive. In their 

study, they used the term "Dark Triad" to represent three behavioral indicators that can be 

grouped under dark personality, namely (1) subclinical psychopathy, (2) subclinical 

narcissism, and (3) machiavellianism. Subclinical psychopathy involves a lack of empathy, 

immoral behavior, callousness, and an inability to feel guilty about antisocial actions 

(Jonason & Webster, 2010). Narcissism entails excessive self-focus, a need for recognition, 

and a tendency to feel superior to others (Jonason & Webster, 2010). Meanwhile, 

Machiavellianism involves manipulative tactics such as control, deception, and flattery, as 

well as a tendency to manipulate others for personal gain (Jonason & Webster, 2010). Since 

first introduced by Paulhus and Williams (2002), the concept of the Dark Triad has become 

the focus of increasingly intensive research, as evidenced by recent studies (Furnham et al., 

ARTICLE  INFO  

 

ABST RACT  

 

Article history 

Received January 21, 2024 

Revised July 22, 2024 

Accepted July 27, 2024 

 This study addresses the need for a culturally adapted and validated 
measurement tool for assessing Dark Triad traits in the Indonesian 
population. The Dark Triad, consisting of narcissism, 
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, are associated with various 
undesirable social and behavioral outcomes worldwide. Our research 
objective was to validate the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen scale within the 
Indonesian setting, using a multi-stage methodology, including 
Principal Component Analysis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, 
reliability testing, and invariance testing. A sample of 429 Indonesian 
undergraduate students (17-23 years old) completed the adapted Dark 
Triad Dirty Dozen Scale, revealing strong psychometric properties, 
including validity by confirming a three-factor structure consistent with 
the theoretical framework, with model fit indices meeting established 
criteria (RMSEA = 0.054; GFI = 0.932; AGFI = 0.890; CFI = 0.971; 
NFI = 0.914; TLI = 0.959) and high reliability (α ≥ 0.7). There is also 
measurement invariance across men and women in DTDD. In 
conclusion, the adapted Dark Triad Dirty Dozen Scale is a valid and 
reliable means to assess Dark Triad traits in Indonesia, contributing to 
a deeper understanding of personality traits and their implications in 
this unique cultural context. 
 

    

 

Keywords 

Confirmatory factor analysis 

Dark triad dirty dozen 

Measurement invariance 

Principal component analysis 

Validation 

 

 

mailto:humanitas@psy.uad.ac.id
http://journal1.uad.ac.id/index.php/Humanitas
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 119 
 

 

Devi et al. (Validity of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD) test-Indonesian version)  

2013; Muris et al., 2017; Miller et al., 2019), both in attempts to understand its negative 

implications (e.g. Curtis et al., 2022; Esteves et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2016) as well as other 

aspects related to it (e.g. Birkás et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2013). 

Based on the searches carried out, it was discovered that in a study conducted by 

Nguyen et al. (2021) with 447 employee samples, 15.9% exhibited high levels of the dark 

triad (malevolent). Other results were also found in a study conducted in Indonesia, where 

2.7% of individuals from a sample of 75 Civil Servants (PNS) were identified with high 

levels of the dark triad, despite the majority of the sample (73.3%) falling into the low 

category (Putri et al., 2021). In contrast, different results were found in another study in 

Indonesia conducted by Banowati and Nugraha (2022), revealing that 85% of 200 social 

media users aged 18-25 exhibited very high levels of the Dark Triad traits. This raises 

concerns about potential negative consequences resulting from deviant behavior associated 

with this personality trait. Deviant behaviors linked to the Dark Triad traits include 

corruption (Putri et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2016), deception (Harrison et al., 2016), academic 

dishonesty (Curtis et al., 2022; Esteves et al., 2021), cyberbullying (Banowati & Nugraha, 

2022; Safaria et al., 2020), as well as counterproductive work behavior (O’Boyle et al., 

2012). Therefore, it is crucial to employ accurate measurements of these traits to identify the 

personality characteristics of individuals precisely, aiding in the investigation of potential 

negative consequences that may arise from these personality traits. 

Several studies on the Dark Triad traits also explore common factors influencing the 

interaction between the three personality traits of the Dark Triad. Jonason and Luévano 

(2013) suggest that the factor structure of the Dark Triad traits has a complex relationship, 

illustrating the concept of a bifactor. Their review highlights a common factor that causes 

overlap among psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism. Similar findings are echoed 

in research by McLarnon and Tarraf (2017), stating that the Dark Triad traits is a complex 

and closely related personality phenomenon, making the identification of common factors 

crucial in understanding the relationship between these three personality traits. Common 

characteristics identified in previous research include callousness (Jones & Figueredo, 2013; 

Paulhus, 2014), manipulativeness (Jones & Figueredo, 2013), low agreeableness (Jakobwitz 

& Egan, 2006), or low levels of honesty-humility (Lee & Ashton, 2005). These findings 

raise questions about whether the Dark Triad traits can be assessed as a single factor or as 

three distinct yet interrelated aspects (psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism) 

(McLarnon & Tarraf, 2017). Therefore, understanding the existence of common factors 

becomes relevant in validating measures of the Dark Triad traits.  

The concept of the Dark Triad traits has been measured in several studies in Indonesia 

using the Short Dark Triad (SD3) developed by Jones and Paulhus (2014). Meanwhile, there 

is a shorter measurement tool from Jonason and Webster (2010) known as the Dark Triad 

"Dirty Dozen" (DTDD), consisting of a total of 12 items compared to SD3, which comprises 

a total of 27 items. The use of a shorter measurement tool can offer benefits in terms of time 

and respondent energy efficiency (Jonason & Webster, 2010). However, it is essential to 

note that this efficiency must be accompanied by high validity standards (Smith et al., 2000). 

A brief measurement tool should be able to capture all parts of the construct without omitting 

essential components of the measured construct (Maples et al., 2014). Therefore, before 

suggesting the use of a shorter measurement tool to assess the dark triad, its validity needs 

to be tested first to ensure its accurate application in Indonesian samples. 

DTDD also demonstrates superiority in terms of its structure, appearing to be more 

stable across various languages and cultural contexts compared to SD3 (Rogoza et al., 2021). 

Furthermore, DTDD itself has been validated in several languages, including Polish (Czarna 

et al., 2016), Turkish (Özsoy et al., 2017), French-Canadian (Savard et al., 2017), Bengali 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 120 
 

 

Devi et al. (Validity of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD) test-Indonesian version)  

(Ahmed et al., 2020), and Korean (Cho et al., 2022). This makes the DTDD measurement 

tool more practical for research and field use that requires a quick and accurate assessment 

of the Dark Triad. The validity of DTDD in Indonesia is crucial, considering the collective 

culture of Indonesian society compared to previous validation research dominated by 

countries with a more individualistic culture. Because culture can shape the meaning of a 

construct, the validation of the DTDD scale must be conducted before its use in different 

cultures (Ma et al., 2021). In this context, this dark personality measurement tool's validation 

efforts ensure measurement accuracy and aim to understand the concept within the unique 

socio-cultural dynamics of Indonesia. 

Based on previous research, the validation of the DTDD scale has reported differing 

factor structure results. Some validation studies conducted using confirmatory factor 

analysis (CFA) found results consistent with the initial structure, where the best model was 

a three-factor correlated model (e.g., Dinić et al., 2018; El Keshky, 2022; Pineda et al., 2020). 

On the other hand, different results were found in other studies where the best model was a 

bifactor model with three factors (e.g., Czarna et al., 2016; Jonason & Luévano, 2013; Savard 

et al., 2017). Additionally, Cho et al. (2022) found another differing result, with the best 

model being a bifactor model with two factors, where psychopathy and Machiavellianism 

were combined into the first factor and narcissism as the second factor. These results leads 

to differing perspectives regarding scoring. Specifically, there are two conflicting 

perspectives: the unification approach, where the Dark Triad traits are mapped onto a single 

common factor, and the separatist approach, which views the three dark triad traits as 

separate factors (McLarnon & Tarraf, 2021). Therefore, testing the appropriate factor 

structure for use in Indonesian samples is crucial to ensure scoring the Dark Triad traits as 

either three interrelated sub-scales or as a single scale. 

These different findings provide room for refinement and further understanding of the 

internal structure of the Dark Triad. Therefore, this validation study aims to determine the 

appropriate factor structure for the DTDD in the Indonesian sample and ensure consistent 

measurement. This ensures the tool can be used to identify dark personality characteristics 

accurately and precisely to aid in researching potential negative consequences associated 

with this personality trait. Additionally, this study also aims to estimate the reliability of the 

scale and evaluate measurement invariance based on gender to ensure the DTDD can 

measure the Dark Triad equally and accurately without gender bias. As for the determination 

of norms, it is also a crucial aspect in the context of dark personality assessment in Indonesia. 

Appropriate norms will provide clear guidelines for interpreting assessment results. With 

norms, assessments become more contextual and relevant, allowing for the optimal use of 

the DTDD measurement tool in analyzing dark personality in Indonesia.  

In conclusion, this research endeavors to deepen our understanding of the Dark Triad 

within the Indonesian cultural framework, extending beyond psychometric properties and 

scoring. This study seeks to illuminate the nuances of Dark Triad traits within the Indonesian 

context, offering insights that could help to better understanding of these traits on individuals 

and society as a whole. 

Method 

Research Design 

This study is divided into two stages. The first stage involves testing the validity of DTDD 

using sources of validity evidence from Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and internal 

consistency. The subsequent stage aims to ensure the validity of DTDD by employing 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 121 
 

 

Devi et al. (Validity of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD) test-Indonesian version)  

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and assessing internal consistency. Data collection 

methods involve non-random sampling techniques, specifically accidental sampling. This 

sampling technique is chosen to ensures diverse sample, thus leading to a more 

comprehensive assessment of its validity. Participants willing to be involved are requested 

to complete an informed consent form and a questionnaire through Google Form. In 

determining the sample size, the researcher follows the rule of thumb guidelines to determine 

the minimum sample size required for a particular analytical model. The rule of thumb used 

in determining the sample size suggests ten times the number of items in the measurement 

tool being validated (Bujang et al., 2022). This study employs the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen 

(DTDD) measurement tool developed by Jonason and Webster (2010), consisting of a total 

of 12 items. Therefore, the researcher determines the target sample size for the study to be a 

minimum of 120 individuals. 

Participants 

Study 1  

Participants in this study consisted of 268 students aged 17-23 years (M = 20.19, SD = 1.15), 

comprising 90 men (33.58%), 173 women (64.55%), and five individuals who chose not to 

disclose their gender (1.87%). The evidence sources used included evidence based on 

internal structure using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to examine the grouping of 

DTDD items, along with reliability analysis to test the internal consistency of DTDD. The 

time frame for study 1 was around July 2022-January 2023.   

Study 2 

Participants in this study were 161 students aged 17-23 years (M = 19.36, SD = 1.05), 

consisting of 44 men (27.32%), 112 women (69.56%), and five individuals who chose not 

to disclose their gender (3.10%). The evidence sources used included evidence based on 

internal structure with Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to confirm the factor model with 

the best fit and reliability analysis to test internal consistency. The time frame for study 2 is 

around June 2023 until August 2023. 

Instruments 

The measurement tool used in this study is the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD), which has 

been adapted into Bahasa Indonesia (Afifah et al., 2023). DTDD was developed by Jonason 

and Webster (2010) to measure psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism. DTDD 

comprises a total of 12 items, with four items for each dimension. The response scale uses a 

Likert scale ranging from one (Strongly Disagree) to six (Strongly Agree). Jonason and 

Webster (2010) reported high reliability for the DTDD scale as follows: DT = 0.86, M = 

0.79, P = 0.77, and N = 0.84. Similarly, Afifah et al. (2023) found favorable reliability 

estimates for the DTDD-Indonesian version: M = 0.768, P = 0.759, and N = 0.866. 

 

Table 1 

Blueprint Dark Triad Dirty Dozen Scale Indonesian Version 
Dimension Item Number Total Examples of Translated Items (in Bahasa Indonesia) 

Machiavellianism 1, 2, 3, 4 4 Saya menggunakan pujian untuk memenuhi keinginan saya. 

Psychopathy 5, 6, 7, 8 4 Saya cenderung tidak berperasaan atau tidak peka. 

Narcissism 9, 10, 11, 12 4 Saya cenderung mencari gengsi atau status. 

Total 12  



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 122 
 

 

Devi et al. (Validity of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD) test-Indonesian version)  

Meanwhile, behavioral indicators for each aspect of the Indonesian version of DTDD 

are as follows: 

 

Table 2 

Behavioral indicators of DTDD Indonesian Version 
Dimension Definition Behavioral Indicators 

Machiavellianism Tendency to use other people to fulfill 

personal desires 

Controlling 

Deceptive 

Flattering 

Exploiting others 

Psychopathy Tendency to be not empathetic/behaving 

anti-socially 

Lack of remorse 

Low morals 

Callous 

Apathetic 

Narcissism Tendency to feel entitled Want to be admired 

Want to be noticed 

Want to be appreciated 

Want special treatment 

Data Analysis 

Based on the standards outlined in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing 

American Educational Research Association (AERA et al., 2014), five sources of evidence 

can be used to assess the validity of a psychological test instrument. These sources include 

evidence based on test content, relationships with other variables, internal structure, response 

processes, and test consequences. The importance of each validity evidence source varies 

depending on factors such as the measured construct, the intended use of the test scores, and 

the assessed population (Reynolds & Livingston, 2014). In this study, the validation testing 

is conducted using evidence based on internal structure to ensure the most appropriate design 

for the DTDD instrument, which can accurately and consistently measure dark personality 

in the Indonesian population. 

 Factor analysis is one method used to examine a test's internal structure to identify 

the number of factors or dimensions that constitute a test (Reynolds & Livingston, 2014). 

There are two types of fact or analysis: exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory 

factor analysis (CFA) (Reynolds & Livingston, 2014). EFA is used to explore the 

representation of items in several latent constructs (Shadiqi, 2023). On the other hand, CFA 

is used to confirm the alignment of items with the components/dimensions/factors that have 

been designed (Natalya & Purwanto, 2018). Both types of factor analysis can be used 

together as a source of internal structure evidence by examining whether the actual structure 

from the data is consistent with the hypothesized structure (Brown, 2015).  

 This study uses both EFA with Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and CFA 

simultaneously to verify whether all items of the Indonesian version of DTDD have been 

accurately grouped using double-check analysis (Natalya & Purwanto, 2018). CFA is a 

statistical analysis method within structural equation modeling (SEM) used to verify the 

number of factors and item grouping while examining the pattern of item-factor relationships 

(factor loadings) (Brown, 2015). In CFA, several statistical criteria, known as model-fit 

indices or goodness-of-fit indices, are employed to evaluate the fit between the actual factor 

structure and the hypothesized factor structure (Reynolds & Livingston, 2014): 
 
 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 123 
 

 

Devi et al. (Validity of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD) test-Indonesian version)  

Table 3 

Cut off value for the goodness of fit indices 

Fit Indices 
Cut off value 

Enough Good 

p-value of χ2   ≥ 0.01 (Hu & Bentler, 1999) > 0.05 (Hu & Bentler, 1999) 

TLI ≥ 0.95 (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003) ≥ 0.97 (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003) 

NFI > 0.90 (Natalya & Purwanto, 2018)  ≥ 0.95 (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003) 

CFI > 0.90 (Natalya & Purwanto, 2018)  > 0.95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999) 

GFI ≥  0.90 (Natalya & Purwanto, 2018) ≥  0.95 (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003) 

AGFI ≥  0.85 (Natalya & Purwanto, 2018) ≥  0.90 (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003) 

RMSEA < 0.10 (Hu & Bentler, 1999) < 0.05 (Hu & Bentler, 1999) 

 

In addition to assessing model accuracy, a valid measurement should also have good 

discriminant validity (Natalya & Purwanto, 2018). Composite Reliability (CR) and Average 

Variance Extracted (AVE) are two criteria commonly used to support evidence of internal 

structure validity (Netemeyer et al., 2003). A good CR value is above or equal to 0.7 (CR ≥ 

0.7) (Hair et al., 2014). Meanwhile, for AVE, a good value is above or equal to 0.5 (AVE ≥ 

0.5) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). 

In addition to factor analysis, reliability testing is necessary to support validity testing 

(Hinton et al., 2014). Reliability testing aims to examine the internal consistency of a 

measurement instrument. A measurement tool is considered reliable if its measurements are 

stable and consistent (Reynolds & Livingston, 2014). Generally, a measurement tool is 

deemed to have satisfactory internal consistency if it has a Cronbach's alpha reliability 

coefficient of ≥ 0.70 (Hinton et al., 2014). 

The purpose of measurement invariance testing is to ensure that there is no potential 

measurement bias that may arise due to differences between groups, thus ensuring that the 

analysis results are reliable and have a strong scientific foundation (Chen, 2007). In general, 

measurement invariance testing involves configural invariance (equality of the number of 

factors and item composition between groups), metric invariance (equality of factor loadings 

for each item between groups), and scalar invariance (equality of factor loadings and 

intercepts for each item between groups) (Muttaqin & Ripa, 2021). Multi-group analysis is 

conducted following the guidelines proposed by Chen (2007), where differences in CFI 

coefficients below -0.005 (≤ -0.005) and differences in RMSEA coefficients below 0.010 (≤ 

0.010) can be considered as indicators that measurement invariance is acceptable. 

Results 

Study 1 

The validity testing began with conducting PCA to observe the grouping of the 12 items of 

the Indonesian version of DTDD. The PCA results proposed three factors based on the latent 

root criterion, a priori criterion, percentage of variance explained criterion, and scree test 

criterion. All DTDD items had factor loadings above 0.4, and each item was grouped 

according to its respective dimension, except for item M3, which showed cross-loading with 

items in the narcissism dimension. However, the factor loading value of item M3 in the 

Machiavellianism dimension was still higher than its factor loading value in the narcissism 

dimension (FL Machiavellianism = 0.507 > FL narcissism = 0.473). 
 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 124 
 

 

Devi et al. (Validity of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD) test-Indonesian version)  

Table 4 

Factor loading results of the Indonesian version of DTDD items 

Dimension Item 
Component 

CR AVE 
Narcissism Maciavellianism Psychopathy 

Narcissism N1 0.808   

0.828 0.549 
N2 0.805   

N4 0.722   

N3 0.610   

Machiavellianism M1  0.812  

0.798 0.503 
M2  0.755  

M4  0.725  

M3 0.473 0.507  

Psychopathy P3   0.756 

0.687 0.363 
P2   0.650 

P1   0.482 

P4   0.477 

Study 2 

The CFA results for the Indonesian version of DTDD are shown in the Figure 1, Figure 2 

and Figure 3. A summary of the results can be seen in Table 5. 

 
Figure 1 
Three Factor Correlated Model 

 
Figure 2 
Second Order Model 

 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 125 
 

 

Devi et al. (Validity of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD) test-Indonesian version)  

Figure 3 
Bifactor Model 

 
Table 5 

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Result of DTDD Indonesian Version 
Model p-value of χ2  TLI NFI CFI GFI AGFI RMSEA 

Three-factor correlated model 0.020 0.959 0.914 0.971 0.932 0.890 0.054 

Second order model 0.020 0.959 0.914 0.971 0.932 0.890 0.054 

Bifactor model 0.008 0.945 0.923 0.968 0.943 0.885 0.062 

Note: χ2  = chi-square, TLI = Tucker–Lewis index, NFI = Normed Fit Index, CFI = Comparative Fit Index, 

GFI = Goodness of Fit Index, AGFI = Adjusted Goodness of Fit, SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square 

Residual, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of  Approximation. 

 
The CFA testing was conducted on three models: the three-factor correlated model, 

the hierarchical model, and the bifactor model. Modification indices (MI) were then used to 

improve the model fit. The testing results for the first model, the three-factor correlated 

model, showed reasonably adequate results based on the goodness-of-fit criteria. Although 

overall, all three models had marginal fit indices, the bifactor model did not meet the 

acceptance criteria for two fit indices, TLI, and p-value of χ2, which are among the absolute 

fit measures (Khairi et al., 2021). The bifactor model is not recommended for use based on 

overall fit indices and specific factor loadings. The presence of a negative correlation (-.604) 

and a small correlation (.000) suggests the existence of unique factors that remain 

unexplained. Overall, the three-factor correlated model and the second-order model had 

better goodness-of-fit values compared to the bifactor model. Therefore, it can be 

recommended that the hierarchical model is more optimal in explaining the internal structure 

of the Indonesian version of DTDD. In addition to achieving results that meet the acceptance 

criteria for the main fit indices, which indicates good model accuracy and internal structural 

validity, it conceptually provides a clearer explanation of the shared factor across the three 

traits (Machiavellianism, Psychopathy, and Narcissism). 

 
Table 6 

Reliability Analysis Result 

No Dimension 
Study 1 (N=268) Study 2 (N=161) 

Number of Items 
𝛼 𝛼 

1 DTDD (Total) 0.736 0.863 12 

2 Machiavellianism 0.716 0.762 4 

3 Psychopathy 0.430 0.721 4 

4 Narcissism 0.760 0.868 4 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 126 
 

 

Devi et al. (Validity of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD) test-Indonesian version)  

The reliability testing results for data from study 1 (N = 268) indicate that overall, the 

DTDD items have good internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha value above 0.7 (𝛼 = 

0.736). However, when evaluated separately, from the three dimensions of DTDD, the 

psychopathy dimension in Study 1 does not have good internal consistency with a 

Cronbach's alpha value below 0.7 (𝛼 = 0.430). This means that based on the reliability testing 

in study 1, the items in the psychopathy dimension have less than optimal internal 

consistency and require further review. 

On the other hand, the reliability testing results for data from Study 2 (N = 161) show 

that overall, and for each dimension, DTDD has Cronbach's alpha that meet the criteria for 

being considered reliable. Although the first study indicated less satisfactory reliability 

levels, the internal consistency values in the second study suggest that changes in subject 

groups can have a significant impact on the reliability of the measurement instrument. 

Therefore, it can be concluded that the DTDD items have sufficiently reliable internal 

consistency overall. 
 

Table 7 

Gender Measurement Invariance Testing of the Indonesian Version of DTDD  
 Model Fit Indices Model Comparison 

df p-value of χ2 CFI RMSEA ΔCFI ΔRMSEA 

Three factor correlation model       

Configural invariance 96 0.001 0.934 0.058   

Metric invariance 105 0.001 0.934 0.056 0.000 -0.002 

Scalar invariance 114 0.001 0.930 0.055 -0.004 -0.001 

Second order model       

Configural invariance 96 0.001 0.934 0.058   

Metric invariance 105 0.001 0.934 0.056 0.000 -0.002 

Scalar invariance 118 0.001 0.929 0.054 -0.005 -0.002 

Bifactor model       

Configural invariance 78 0.042 0.970 0.044   

Metric invariance 98 0.021 0.960 0.045 -0.010 0.001 

Scalar invariance 107 0.032 0.962 0.042 0.002 -0.003 

 

From the results of the multi-group analysis presented in Table 7, it appears that there 

are differences in the CFI coefficients below -0.005 (≤ -0.005) and differences in the 

RMSEA coefficients below 0.010 (≤ 0.010) in the testing of metric and scalar invariance of 

the DTDD measurement instrument. These results indicate that there is measurement 

invariance in DTDD based on the respondents' gender.  

In other words, the factor structure, factor loadings, and intercepts for each DTDD 

item do not show significant differences between male and female respondent groups. This 

finding confirms that DTDD can be reliable and consistent in measuring the Dark Triad, 

both in male and female respondents, making the results considered valid for the Indonesian 

population. 

To complement the Indonesian version of the DTDD scale, in this study, the 

researchers established norms. With this information, scale users can interpret the 

implications of their scores with the reference group established. However, it is important to 

note that these norms are specific to the population used as the sample, namely Indonesian 

university students. 

 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 127 
 

 

Devi et al. (Validity of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD) test-Indonesian version)  

Table 8 

DTDD Norms Indonesian Version 

Category 
Ideal Norm 

(total) 

Ideal Norm 

(dimension) 

Group Norm 

Total  

(T) 

Machiavellianism 

(M) 

Psychopathy 

(P) 

Narcissism 

(N) 

Very Low < 22 < 7.33 ≤ 17 ≤ 4 ≤ 3 ≤ 4 

Low 22 - 31 7.33 – 10.66 18 – 26 5 - 8 4 – 6 5 – 9 

Quite Low 32 - 41 10.67 – 13.99 27 – 35 9 - 12 7 – 9 10 – 13 

Quite High 42 - 51  14.00 – 17.32  36 – 45 13 - 16 10 – 13 14 – 18 

High 52 - 62 17.33 – 20.66 46 – 54 17 – 20 14 – 16 19 – 22 

Very High ≥ 63 ≥ 20.67 ≥ 55 ≥ 21 ≥ 17 ≥ 23 

Note: Mean T = 35.904; SD T= 9.128; Mean M = 12.515; SD M = 4.021; Mean P = 9.814; SD P = 3.442; 

Mean N = 13,576; SD N = 4.525 

Discussion 

This study examined the validity of the Indonesian version of the DTDD measurement 

instrument through evidence of internal structure using PCA and CFA, supported by 

reliability testing using Cronbach's alpha. The research began by examining the item 

grouping based on PCA analysis, and the results were then confirmed through CFA by 

testing three models (correlation, hierarchy, and bifactor). 

Based on the results of PCA, the 12 items of the Indonesian version of DTDD showed 

good grouping according to the initial design dimensions, which are three dimensions with 

four items each. One item from the Machiavellianism dimension (M3) cross-loaded into the 

Narcissism dimension. Cross-loading is likely to occur as the dark triad is a collection of 

three overlapping dimensions (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Nevertheless, the factor loading 

value for item M3 is still higher in the Machiavellianism dimension than in the Narcissism 

dimension, so the researcher decided to retain the item. Thus, it can be concluded that the 12 

items of the Indonesian version of DTDD can be grouped into three dimensions as per the 

initial design. 

Next, the CFA results were used to confirm the proposed factor structure from PCA, 

which is three factors with four items each according to the a priori design. CFA testing 

results showed that the three-factor correlated model and hierarchical model had similar 

goodness-of-fit values, and both met the cut-off values for each index. While the bifactor 

model also showed good model fit, it was not as good as the correlation and hierarchy 

models. This result is similar to the findings of Pineda et al. (2020); Dinić et al. (2018); and 

El Keshky (2022), who found the correlation model to be the best for DTDD. In addition, 

the multi-group analysis revealed that the Indonesian version of DTDD shows measurement 

invariance by testing metric and scalar invariance. This finding indicates that there is no 

difference between the number of factors, item composition, and factor loadings between 

male and female respondent samples (Chen, 2007). 

From the CFA results, a negative correlation of -0.284 was found between the error 

variance of item M3 and P3 in the three-factor correlation model and hierarchical model. 

This correlation result may reflect differences in the social strategies applied by individuals 

who show higher levels in one dimension compared to another (Jones & Mueller, 2022). The 

Machiavellianism dimension is often associated with more strategic, manipulative, and goal-

oriented social strategies (Jones & Paulhus, 2011). In contrast, the Psychopathy dimension 

tends to describe more impulsive, lack of self-control, and antisocial behavior (Jones & 

Paulhus, 2011). Therefore, individuals with higher scores in the Machiavellianism 

dimension may tend to use more focused social strategies, while those showing higher levels 

in the Psychopathy dimension may engage in more impulsive actions in social interactions 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 128 
 

 

Devi et al. (Validity of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD) test-Indonesian version)  

(Furnham et al., 2013). These differences in social strategies can explain the negative 

correlation found between items in the Machiavellianism dimension and items in the 

Psychopathy dimension. 

Based on previous research, it has been found that the three dimensions of the Dark 

Triad often overlap, indicating a complex relationship between these dimensions (Paulhus 

& Williams, 2002; Jones & Paulhus, 2014). Paulhus & Williams (2002) as the first who 

introduce the concept also indicates in their definition that dark triad is three distinct but 

overlapping construct of socially aversive traits. Correlating errors in SEM requires a solid 

theoretical justification, suggesting that certain aspects of the constructs are related and 

might share unique variance (Perry et al., 2015; Landis et al., 2009). Harrington (2009) also 

stated that measurement errors can be the result of similar phrases in the item. This seem to 

be the case for item M2 “I have used deceit or lied to get my way” and M3 “I have use flattery 

to get my way.” Previous research indicating overlap among the dimensions of the Dark 

Triad serves as the theoretical justification for correlating errors between items. This 

approach ensures that the error correlation aligns with both theoretical underpinnings and 

empirical evidence obtained from the data, maintaining the integrity of the model. 

The reliability testing results from Study 1 and Study 2 showed different outcomes 

where the internal consistency values for the psychopathy dimension were less reliable in 

the first study but reliable in the second study. The psychopathy dimension had less internal 

consistency due to Cronbach's alpha values not meeting the reliability. However, low 

internal consistency can be caused by the limited number of items on the scale (Schweizer, 

2011), with some previous studies also finding lower internal consistency values in the 

psychopathy dimension (e.g., Dinić et al., 2018; El Keshky, 2022; Jonason & Webster, 

2010). Each dimension of DTDD consists of only four items, which can result in relatively 

low internal consistency when analyzed per dimension compared to the overall internal 

consistency value (Jonason & Webster, 2010). Cronbach's alpha is a coefficient of internal 

consistency closely related to the number of items analyzed. The greater the number of items 

analyzed within a measurement tool or dimension, the likelihood is that the Cronbach's alpha 

coefficient will increase (Reynolds & Livingston, 2014). 

Furthermore, the creation of a shorter scale aims to allow the instrument to measure 

all aspects of a construct with non-redundant items (Jonason & Webster, 2010). This results 

in a measurement tool with a limited number of items and tends to be diverse, so the 

correlation values between items on a shorter scale tend to be low (Rammstedt & Beierlein, 

2014). Therefore, lower internal consistency than a longer scale is not a problem if the 

validity of the scale in terms of content coverage can be maintained (Rammstedt & Beierlein, 

2014). Thus, it can be concluded that the Indonesian version of DTDD can consistently 

measure dark triad tendencies. 

Moreover, based on the findings from CR and AVE analysis supporting evidence of 

internal structure validity, the CR values were above 0.7 for the Machiavellianism and 

narcissism dimensions (CR ≥ 0.70). Similarly, only the Machiavellianism and narcissism 

dimensions had AVE values above 0.5. According to Fornell & Larcker (1981), an AVE 

value below 0.5 indicates a higher level of average error than the variance captured by the 

construct. However, if the AVE value is close to 0.5 and other validity criteria are met, the 

AVE value alone is not enough to indicate a problem. All aspects of DTDD also had CR 

values in the range of 0.60 - 0.70, which is acceptable according to (Hair et al., 2014). This 

indicates that all aspects of DTDD are consistent enough. Because overall CFA testing 

results showed a good model fit for the correlation model according to the initial design and 

PCA results, it can be said that the Indonesian version of DTDD is valid. 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 129 
 

 

Devi et al. (Validity of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD) test-Indonesian version)  

The implications of this research at the theoretical level are that the Indonesian version 

of DTDD can be considered a valid and reliable measurement tool for assessing the dark 

triad. Practically, these findings provide a solid foundation for the implementation and 

interpretation of DTDD in the Indonesian context. Therefore, this research not only 

contributes to understanding the dark triad concept but also offers useful guidance for 

practitioners and researchers in accurately applying and interpreting the DTDD scale in the 

Indonesian population. 

However, it is crucial to acknowledge a limitation concerning the need for additional 

sources of validity evidence. While this study provides strong evidence supporting the 

internal structure validity of the Indonesian DTDD, future research could benefit from 

incorporating other sources of validity evidence such as evidence based on test content and 

correlation with other variables to further validate the scale's effectiveness in capturing dark 

triad traits.  

Conclusion 

The results obtained indicate that the Indonesian version of DTDD can be used to measure 

the dark triad validly and reliably. The first study showed that DTDD could accurately 

measure the three dimensions, namely Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism, with 

item grouping according to the initial design. This result was also confirmed in the second 

study using CFA, which showed the three-factor model as the most suitable models for the 

Indonesian version of DTDD. This finding is consistent with previous research that found 

the three-factor correlated model to be the best for DTDD. Based on the findings of this 

study, it is known that the Indonesian version of DTDD has good and adequate internal 

structure validity evidence. Furthermore, the results of gender measurement invariance 

testing also confirmed that the DTDD measurement tool is not gender biased in the context 

of the Indonesian population. This indicates that the Indonesian version of DTDD can be 

used fairly and accurately to measure the levels of the dark triad in individuals without 

distinguishing their gender. In addition, the factor structure testing also provides a strong 

foundation for deciding the appropriate scoring method for DTDD. Based on the results of 

PCA and CFA, it can be ensured that DTDD scoring can be done following the proposed 

three-factor hierarchy. This process helps validate that the three aspects of the dark triad, 

including Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism, are not only interrelated but can 

also be considered as a single dimension summarizing the complexity of the dark triad. Thus, 

scoring DTDD can be done by looking at scores per dimension for a more specific 

understanding of the aspects of the dark triad, while the total score provides a holistic 

overview of the overall tendency of the dark triad in individuals. Therefore, this research 

provides a comprehensive understanding of the appropriate scoring method for the DTDD 

scale. 

Acknowledgment 

We would like to express my sincere appreciation to Universitas Surabaya for granting 

permission to conduct the research. Heartfelt thanks to the participants who generously 

contributed their time to complete the survey. Thank you all for your crucial roles in the 

success of this research.  

Declarations  

Author contribution. LD, LN, and IBS collectively contributed to the conception and 
execution of this research study. LD played a role in proposing the initial research idea, 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 130 
 

 

Devi et al. (Validity of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD) test-Indonesian version)  

conducting extensive literature reviews, preparing the measurement tools, overseeing data 
collection, conducting data analysis, and drafting the initial version of the research article. 
LN and IBS, serving as research supervisors, provided valuable guidance throughout the 
research process, offering insights into refining the research topic, scrutinizing measurement 
tools, conducting verification checks, reviewing language, and contributing to the writing 
process. PKJ provided valuable input on the methodology and validation aspects of the study 
and also contributed to the review and editing of the manuscript. 
Funding statement. The authors themselves funded this research. 
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest. 
Additional information. No additional information is available for this paper. 
 

References 
 

Afifah, A. S. A. N., Lumintu, A., Pangeran, G. A., Sibuea, M. F. M., Zahra, S. R., Shindied, 

T. K., & Natalya, L. (2023). Dark Triad Dirty Dozen Scale (DTDD) Versi Bahasa 

Indonesia. [Dark Triad Dirty Dozen Scale (DTDD) Indonesaian Version]. In L. 

Natalya & G. Wibaningrum (Eds.), Measuring Human Behavior: 32 Psychological 

Tools – A Sourcebook (1st ed.). Fakultas Psikologi - Universitas Surabaya. 

Ahmed, O., Naher, L., Islam, R., Akter, M., & Deb, S. (2020). Psychometric analyses of the 

Bangla version of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen. Heliyon, 6(11), e05341. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05341 

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & 

National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational 

and psychological testing. AERA. 

Banowati, A., & Nugraha, S. (2022). Pengaruh kepribadian dark triad terhadap perilaku 

cyberbullying pada pengguna media sosial [The influence of dark triad personality on 

cyberbullying behavior among social media users]. Bandung Conference Series: 

Psychology Science, 2(3), 682–689. https://doi.org/10.29313/bcsps.v2i3.2879 

Birkás, B., Pátkai, G., & Csathó, Á. (2020). The mediating role of the dark triad between life 

history strategy and perceived stress factors. Psychological Reports, 123(2), 252–265. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118818095 

Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The 

Guilford Press. 

Bujang, M. A., Yee, L. K., & Khee, H. Y. (2022). A step-by-step guide to questionnaire 

validation research. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6801209 

Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. 

Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834 

Cho, H., Fengge, L., Ma, H., & Ock, J. (2022). Validation and factor structure analysis of 

the K-Dirty Dozen. Korean Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 

35(2), 299–326. https://doi.org/10.24230/kjiop.v35i2.299-326 

Curtis, G. J., Correia, H. M., & Davis, M. C. (2022). Entitlement mediates the relationship 

between dark triad traits and academic misconduct. Personality and Individual 

Differences, 191, 111563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111563 

Czarna, A. Z., Jonason, P. K., Dufner, M., & Kossowska, M. (2016). The Dirty Dozen Scale: 

Validation of a Polish version and extension of the nomological net. Frontiers in 

Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00445 

Dinić, B. M., Petrović, B., & Jonason, P. K. (2018). Serbian adaptations of the Dark Triad 

Dirty Dozen (DTDD) and Short Dark Triad (SD3). Personality and Individual 

Differences, 134, 321–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.06.018 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05341
https://doi.org/10.29313/bcsps.v2i3.2879
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118818095
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6801209
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
https://doi.org/10.24230/kjiop.v35i2.299-326
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111563
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00445
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.06.018


Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 131 
 

 

Devi et al. (Validity of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD) test-Indonesian version)  

El Keshky, M. E. S. (2022). Psychometric properties of an Arabic version of the Dark Triad 

Dirty Dozen Scale. Australian Journal of Psychology, 74(1). 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2022.2138543 

Esteves, G. G. L., Oliveira, L. S., de Andrade, J. M., & Menezes, M. P. (2021). Dark triad 

predicts academic cheating. Personality and Individual Differences, 171, 110513. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110513 

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with 

unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 

39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104 

Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The dark triad of personality: A 10-

year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199–216. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12018 

Hair, J. F. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-

SEM). SAGE. 

Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis. Oxford University Press.  

Harrison, A., Summers, J., & Mennecke, B. (2018). The effects of the dark triad on unethical 

behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(1), 53–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-

016-3368-3 

Hinton, P., McMurray, I., & Brownlow, C. (2014). SPSS Explained. Routledge. 

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315797298 

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure 

analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: 

A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 

Jakobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006). The dark triad and normal personality traits. Personality 

and Individual Differences, 40(2), 331–339. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.006 

Jonason, P. K., & Luévano, V. X. (2013). Walking the thin line between efficiency and 

accuracy: Validity and structural properties of the Dirty Dozen. Personality and 

Individual Differences, 55(1), 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.02.010 

Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The Dirty Dozen: A concise measure of the Dark 

Triad. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019265 

Jones, D. N., & Figueredo, A. J. (2013). The core of darkness: Uncovering the heart of the 

Dark Triad. European Journal of Personality, 27(6), 521–531. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1893 

Jones, D. N., & Mueller, S. M. (2022). Is Machiavellianism dead or dormant? The Perils of 

Researching a Secretive Construct. Journal of Business Ethics, 176(3), 535–549. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04708-w 

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2011). The role of impulsivity in the Dark Triad of 

personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 679–682. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.011 

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3). Assessment, 

21(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113514105 

Khairi, M. I., Susanti, D., & Sukono, S. (2021). Study on structural equation modeling for 

analyzing data. International Journal of Ethno-Sciences and Education Research, 

1(3), 52–60. https://doi.org/10.46336/ijeer.v1i3.295 

Landis, R. S., Edwards, B. D., & Cortina, J. M. (2009). On the practice of allowing correlated 

residuals among indicators in structural equation models. In C. E. Lance & R. J. 

Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2022.2138543
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110513
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12018
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3368-3
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3368-3
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315797298
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.006
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.02.010
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019265
https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1893
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04708-w
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.011
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113514105
https://doi.org/10.46336/ijeer.v1i3.295


Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 132 
 

 

Devi et al. (Validity of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD) test-Indonesian version)  

Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 193–214). 

Routledge. 

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and Narcissism in the 

Five-Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and 

Individual Differences, 38(7), 1571–1582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.016 

Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Wiltshire, J., Bourdage, J. S., Visser, B. A., & Gallucci, A. (2013). 

Sex, power, and money: Prediction from the dark triad and honesty–humility. 

European Journal of Personality, 27(2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1860 

Ma, G. X., Born, M. P., Petrou, P., & Bakker, A. B. (2021). Bright sides of dark personality? 

A cross‐cultural study on the dark triad and work outcomes. International Journal of 

Selection and Assessment, 29(3–4), 510–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12342 

Maples, J. L., Lamkin, J., & Miller, J. D. (2014). A test of two brief measures of the dark 

triad: The dirty dozen and short dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 326–331. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035084 

McLarnon, M. J. W., & Tarraf, R. C. (2017). The Dark Triad: Specific or general sources of 

variance? A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling approach. Personality 

and Individual Differences, 112, 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.049 

McLarnon, M. J. W., & Tarraf, R. C. (2021). Getting to the core: How “(dis)honest” is the 

core of the Dark Triad? Personality and Individual Differences, 171, 110545. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110545 

Miller, J. D., Vize, C., Crowe, M. L., & Lynam, D. R. (2019). A critical appraisal of the 

dark-triad literature and suggestions for moving forward. Current Directions in 

Psychological Science, 28(4), 353–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419838233 

Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Otgaar, H., & Meijer, E. (2017). The malevolent side of human 

nature. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 183–204. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616666070 

Muttaqin, D., & Ripa, S. (2021). Psychometric properties of the Indonesian version of the 

Depression Anxiety Stress Scale: Factor structure, reliability, gender, and age 

measurement invariance. Psikohumaniora: Jurnal Penelitian Psikologi, 6(1), 61–76. 

https://doi.org/10.21580/pjpp.v6i1.7815 

Natalya, L., & Purwanto, C. V. (2018). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the 

Academic Motivation Scale (AMS)–Bahasa Indonesia. Makara Human Behavior 

Studies in Asia, 22(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.7454/hubs.asia.2130118  

Netemeyer, R., Bearden, W., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures. SAGE Publications, 

Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412985772 

Nguyen, N., Pascart, S., & Borteyrou, X. (2021). The dark triad personality traits and work 

behaviors: A person-centered approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 170, 

110432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110432  

O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis 

of the Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of 

Applied Psychology, 97(3), 557–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025679  

 Özsoy, E., Rauthmann, J. F., Jonason, P. K., & Ardıç, K. (2017). Reliability and validity of 

the Turkish versions of Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD-T), Short Dark Triad (SD3-

T), and Single Item Narcissism Scale (SINS-T). Personality and Individual 

Differences, 117, 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.019  

Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Toward a taxonomy of dark personalities. Current Directions in 

Psychological Science, 23(6), 421–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414547737 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.016
https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1860
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12342
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035084
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.049
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110545
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419838233
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616666070
https://doi.org/10.21580/pjpp.v6i1.7815
https://doi.org/10.7454/hubs.asia.2130118
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412985772
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110432
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025679
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.019
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414547737


Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 133 
 

 

Devi et al. (Validity of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD) test-Indonesian version)  

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, 

Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–

563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6  

Perry, J. L., Nicholls, A. R., Clough, P. J., & Crust, L. (2015). Assessing model fit: Caveats 

and recommendations for confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory structural 

equation modeling. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 19(1), 

12–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2014.952370 

Pineda, D., Sandín, B., & Muris, P. (2020). Psychometrics properties of the Spanish version 

of two Dark Triad scales: The Dirty Dozen and the Short Dark Triad. Current 

Psychology, 39(5), 1873–1881. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9888-5  

Putri, K.W.,  Rahayu, P.Y., & Arunima, A. (2021). Dark triad personality as predictor of 

corrupt intention on the state civil apparatus. Journal of Educational, Health and 

Community Psychology, 10(2), 375. https://doi.org/10.12928/jehcp.v10i2.20649  

Rammstedt, B., & Beierlein, C. (2014). Can’t we make it any shorter? Journal of Individual 

Differences, 35(4), 212–220. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000141  

Reynolds, C. R., & Livingston, R. B. (2014). Mastering modern psychological testing: 

Theory & methods. Pearson.  

Rogoza, R., Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M., Jonason, P. K., Piotrowski, J., Campbell, K. W., 

Gebauer, J. E., Maltby,czarna J., Sedikides, C., Adamovic, M., Adams, B. G., Ang, R. 

P., Ardi, R., Atitsogbe, K. A., Baltatescu, S., Bilić, S., Bodroža, B., Gruneau Brulin, 

J., Bundhoo Poonoosamy, H. Y., Chaleeraktrakoon, T., … Włodarczyk, A. (2021). 

Structure of Dark Triad Dirty Dozen across eight world regions. Assessment, 28(4), 

1125–1135. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120922611  

Safaria, T., Lubabin, F., Purwandari, E., Ratnaningsih, I. Z., Nofrans, M. K., Saputra, E., 

Ipak, E., Esita, R., Nazriani, D., & Mariyati, L. E. (2020). The role of dark triad 

personality on cyberbullying: Is it still a problem? International Journal of Scientific 

& Technology Research, 9(2), 4256–4260. 

Savard, C., Simard, C., & Jonason, P. K. (2017). Psychometric properties of the French-

Canadian version of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen. Personality and Individual 

Differences, 119, 122–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.06.044  

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of 

structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit 

measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23-74. 

https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.12784  

Schweizer, K. (2011). Some thoughts concerning the recent shift from measures with many 

items to measures with few items. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 

27(2), 71–72. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000056  

Shadiqi, M. A. (2023). Statistik untuk Penelitian Psikologi dengan SPSS [Statistics for 

psychological research using SPSS]. Rajawali Pers. 

Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Anderson, K. G. (2000). On the sins of short-form 

development. Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 102–111. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.102 

Zhao, H., Zhang, H., & Xu, Y. (2016). Does the dark triad of personality predict corrupt 

intention? The mediating role of belief in good luck. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(2), 

71–72. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00608 

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6
https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2014.952370
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9888-5
https://doi.org/10.12928/jehcp.v10i2.20649
https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000141
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120922611
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.06.044
https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.12784
https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000056
https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.102
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00608

