Top

Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment

Gepubliceerd in:

05-04-2018

Antisocial Process Screening Device Subscales Predict Recidivism in an Australian Juvenile Offender Sample

Auteurs: Natalie Goulter, Eva R. Kimonis, Eric Heller

Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment | Uitgave 2/2018

Abstract

The present study is the first to examine the psychometric properties of the self-report Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD-SR), and the predictive utility of its subscales for reoffending, among Australian juvenile offenders (N = 308, M age = 17.00, SD = 1.49). Exploratory factor analysis supported a modified three-factor structure in which four items loaded differently to prior studies. Total APSD-SR and modified subscale scores were positively associated with criminal history and mental health problems (e.g., internalizing and externalizing problems, alcohol and substance abuse/dependence). Survival analyses indicated that youth scoring high on the APSD-SR total score were faster to reoffend nonviolently (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 1.31, p = .0003) and violently (HR = 1.42, p = .0003) than those scoring low. Whereas the modified grandiose-manipulative subscale predicted faster time to nonviolent recidivism (HR = 1.18, p = .026) as a single predictor, when all subscales were simultaneously entered into the model only callous-unemotional (CU) traits and impulsivity predicted nonviolent recidivism (HR = 1.19, p = .026 and 1.22, p = .015, respectively), and only impulsivity predicted violent recidivism (HR = 1.26, p = .014). Findings inform current understanding of the relative contribution of adolescent psychopathy dimensions to designating a particularly high-risk group of Australian youth in custody.

vorige artikel Grandiose-Manipulative, Callous-Unemotional, and Daring-Impulsive: the Prediction of Psychopathic Traits in Adolescence and their Outcomes in Adulthood

volgende artikel Exposure to Violence as a Mediator of the CU–Aggression Relationship: on the Importance of Establishing the Causal Direction of Variables in a Path Analysis

The correlated two- (CU, impulsivity/CP) and three-factor (CU, grandiose-manipulative, impulsivity) models identified in studies of the original parent-report version (Frick et al. 2000) excluded item 2 (‘Engages in illegal activities’) due to stipulations by the school and item 6 (‘Lies easily’) because of inconsistent loadings and similarity with the lying symptom of Conduct Disorder to minimize overlap (Frick, personal communication, 2017).

EFA were conducted instead of CFA given research finding that CFA fit statistics are often too conservative for accurate evaluation of personality inventories (Hopwood and Donnellan 2010; Marsh et al. 2013).

EFA were repeated in SPSS 23 and factor loadings remained the same.

To address overlap, negative binomial regression analyses with criminal history outcomes and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses with recidivism outcomes were repeated with item 2 (‘Engages in illegal activities’) removed from the impulsivity subscale. With regard to criminal history, with scores entered as single predictors, the impulsivity subscale remained a significant predictor of total (Odds Ratio [OR] = 1.23, p = .000, CI [1.13, 1.33]), nonviolent (OR = 1.26, p = .000, CI [1.16, 1.37]), and violent (OR = 1.13, p = .005, CI [1.04, 1.24]) prior charges, and negatively associated with prior sexual (OR = .61, p = .004, CI [.44, .85]) charges. When subscales were entered simultaneously into the model, impulsivity also remained a significant predictor of total (OR = 1.24, p = .000, CI [1.13, 1.36]), nonviolent (OR = 1.29, p = .000, CI [1.17, 1.41]) and violent (OR = 1.11, p = .04, CI [1.01, 1.24]) prior charges, and negatively associated with prior sexual charges (OR = .50, p = .001, CI [.32, .76]). With regard to recidivism, with scores entered as single predictors, the impulsivity subscale remained a significant predictor of nonviolent (χ² [1] = 9.52, HR = 1.25, p = .002, CI [1.08, 1.45]) and violent reoffenses (χ² [1] = 12.27, HR = 1.34, p = .001, CI [1.13, 1.58]). When subscales were entered simultaneously into the model, impulsivity also remained a significant predictor nonviolent (χ² [1] = 15.16, HR = 1.21, p = .024, CI [1.03, 1.43]) and violent reoffenses (χ² [1] = 17.85, HR = 1.26, p = .019, CI [1.04, 1.52]).

Cox proportional hazard regression analyses predicting nonviolent and violent offenses were repeated with two- and three-way interactions between APSD-SR subscales, and between each subscale and K-SADS-PL CD diagnoses, and no significant interactions were found.

Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52(3), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294359.CrossRef

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing

Andershed, H., Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Levander, S. (2002). Psychopathic traits in non-referred youths: A new assessment tool. In E. Blaauw & L. Sheridan (Eds.), Psychopaths: Current international perspectives (pp. 131–158). The Hague, The Netherlans: Elsevier.

Asscher, J. J., van Vugt, E. S., Stams, G. J., Dekovic, M., Eichelsheim, V. I., & Yousfi, S. (2011). The relationship between juvenile psychopathic traits, delinquency and (violent) recidivism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 52(11), 1134–1143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02412.x.CrossRef

Barker, C., Pistrang, N., & Elliot, R. (1994). Research methods in clinical and counselling psychology: John Wiley & Sons.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.CrossRefPubMed

Blair, R. J. R. (2015). Psychopathic traits from an RDoC perspective. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 30, 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2014.09.011.

Boccaccini, M. T., Epstein, M., Poythress, N., Douglas, K. S., Campbell, J., Gardner, G., & Falkenbach, D. (2007). Self-report measures of child and adolescent psychopathy as predictors of offending in four samples of justice-involved youth. Assessment, 14(4), 361–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191107303569.CrossRefPubMed

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bushman, B. J., & Thomaes, S. (2011). When the narcissistic ego deflates, narcissistic aggression inflates. In W. K. Campbell & J. D. Miller (Eds.), The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings, and treatments (pp. 319–329). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309.CrossRef

Colins, O. F., Bijttebier, P., Broekaert, E., & Andershed, H. (2014). Psychopathic-like traits among detained female adolescents reliability and validity of the antisocial process screening device and the youth psychopathic traits inventory. Assessment, 21(2), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113481997.CrossRefPubMed

Dillard, C. L., Salekin, R. T., Barker, E. D., & Grimes, R. D. (2013). Psychopathy in adolescent offenders: An item response theory study of the antisocial process screening device–self report and the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4(2), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028439.CrossRef

Douglas, K. S., Epstein, M. E., & Poythress, N. G. (2007). Criminal recidivism among juvenile offenders: Testing the incremental and predictive vallidity of three measures of psychopathic features. Law & Human Behavior, 32, 423–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9114-8

Falkenbach, D. M., Poythress, N. G., & Heide, K. M. (2003). Psychopathic features in a juvenile diversion population: Reliability and predictive validity of two self-report measures. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21(6), 787–805. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.562.CrossRef

Forth, A. E., Kosson, D. S., & Hare, R. D. (2003). The psychopathy checklist: Youth version manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

Frick, P. J., & Hare, R. D. (2001). Antisocial Process Screening Device Technical Manual Toronto: Multi-health systems.

Frick, P. J., Bodin, S. D., & Barry, C. T. (2000). Psychopathic traits and conduct problems in community and clinic-referred samples of children: further development of the psychopathy screening device. Psychological Assessment, 12(4), 382–393. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.12.4.382.CrossRefPubMed

Frick, P. J., Cornell, A. H., Barry, C. T., Bodin, S. D., & Dane, H. E. (2003). Callous-unemotional traits and conduct problems in the prediction of conduct problem severity, aggression, and self-report of delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31(4), 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023899703866.CrossRefPubMed

Frick, P. J., Stickle, T. R., Dandreaux, D. M., Farrell, J. M., & Kimonis, E. R. (2005). Callous-unemotional traits in predicting the severity and stability of conduct problems and delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(4), 471–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-5728-9.CrossRefPubMed

Fritz, M. V., Ruchkin, V., Koposov, R., & af Klinteberg, B. (2008). Antisocial process screening device: Validation on a Russian sample of juvenile delinquents with the emphasis on the role of personality and parental rearing. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 31(5), 438–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2008.08.003.CrossRef

Gardner, W., Mulvey, E. P., & Shaw, E. C. (1995). Regression analyses of counts and rates: Poisson, overdispersed Poisson, and negative binomial models. Psychological Bulletin, 118(3), 392–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.3.392.CrossRefPubMed

Hopwood, C. J., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). How should the internal structure of personality inventories be evaluated? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(3), 332–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310361240.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

Juvenile Detention Statistics (2017). Youth detention population in Australia 2017. Retrieved from the Australia Govenrment - Australian Institute of Health and Welfare website: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/youth-justice/youth-detention-population-in-australia-2017/contents/table-of-contents

Kimonis, E. R., Kennealy, P. J., & Goulter, N. (2016). Does the self-report inventory of callous-unemotional traits predict recidivism? Psychological Assessment, 28(12), 1616–1624. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000292.CrossRefPubMed

Krueger, R. F., Eaton, N. R., Clark, L. A., Watson, D., Markon, K. E., Derringer, J., Skodol, A., & Livesley, W. J. (2011). Deriving an empirical structure of personality pathology for DSM-5. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25(2), 170–191. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2011.25.2.170.CrossRefPubMed

Lee, E. T., & Wang, J. (2003). Statistical methods for survival data analysis (Vol. 476): John Wiley & Sons.

Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Nagengast, B., Morin, A. J., & Von Davier, M. (2013). Why item parcels are (almost) never appropriate: Two wrongs do not make a right—Camouflaging misspecification with item parcels in CFA models. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 257–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032773.CrossRefPubMed

McCrae, R. R., Kurtz, J. E., Yamagata, S., & Terracciano, A. (2011). Internal consistency, retest reliability, and their implications for personality scale validity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(1), 28–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310366253.CrossRefPubMed

McMahon, R. J., Witkiewitz, K., & Kotler, J. S. (2010). Predictive validity of callous–unemotional traits measured in early adolescence with respect to multiple antisocial outcomes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119(4), 752–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020796.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. K. (2012). Mplus Version 7: User’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Development and Psychopathology, 21(03), 913–938. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409000492.CrossRefPubMed

Pechorro, P., Maroco, J., Poiares, C., & Vieira, R. X. (2013). Validation of the Portuguese version of the antisocial process screening device–self-report with a focus on delinquent behavior and behavior problems. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57(1), 112–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X11427174.CrossRefPubMed

Poythress, N. G., Dembo, R., Wareham, J., & Greenbaum, P. E. (2006). Construct validity of the youth psychopathic traits inventory (YPI) and the antisocial process screening device (APSD) with justice-involved adolescents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(1), 26–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854805282518.CrossRef

Salekin, R. T. (2008). Psychopathy and recidivism from mid-adolescence to young adulthood: cumulating legal problems and limiting life opportunities. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117(2), 386–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.117.2.386.CrossRefPubMed

Salekin, R. T. (2016). Psychopathy in childhood: Toward better informing the DSM–5 and ICD-11 conduct disorder specifiers. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7(2), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000150.CrossRef

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 online, 8(2), 23–74.

Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291170.CrossRef

Vitacco, M. J., Neumann, C. S., Robertson, A. A., & Durrant, S. L. (2002). Contributions of impulsivity and callousness in the assessment of adjudicated male adolescents: A prospective study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78(1), 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA7801_06.CrossRefPubMed

Vitacco, M. J., Rogers, R., & Neumann, C. S. (2003). The antisocial process screening device an examination of its construct and criterion-related validity. Assessment, 10(2), 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191103010002005.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Antisocial Process Screening Device Subscales Predict Recidivism in an Australian Juvenile Offender Sample
Auteurs: Natalie Goulter
Eva R. Kimonis
Eric Heller
Publicatiedatum: 05-04-2018
Uitgeverij: Springer US
Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment / Uitgave 2/2018
Print ISSN: 0882-2689
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-3505
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-018-9669-3

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2018

Exposure to Violence as a Mediator of the CU–Aggression Relationship: on the Importance of Establishing the Causal Direction of Variables in a Path Analysis

Using a Videogame Intervention to Reduce Anxiety and Externalizing Problems among Youths in Residential Care: an Initial Randomized Controlled Trial

Reliable and Valid Coding of Thin Slices of Video Footage: Applicability to the Assessment of Mother-Child Interactions

Sluggish Cognitive Tempo Symptoms Contribute to Heterogeneity in Adult Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Intraindividual Dynamic Network Analysis – Implications for Clinical Assessment

Experiencing Adverse Social Relationships: the Development and Validation of a Self-Report Scale that Measures Individuals’ Histories of Social Punishment (HoSP)