Top

Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment

Gepubliceerd in:

30-01-2023

The Relative Importance of Psychopathy Features as Predictors of Externalizing Behaviors in Youth: A Multimethod Examination

Auteurs: Colin E. Vize, Amy L. Byrd, Stephanie D. Stepp

Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment | Uitgave 1/2023

Abstract

Research in youth psychopathy has focused heavily on the affective features (i.e., callous-unemotional [CU] traits) given robust links to severe and chronic forms of externalizing behaviors. Recently, there have been calls to expand the scope of work in this area to examine the importance of other interpersonal (i.e., antagonism) and behavioral (i.e., disinhibition) features of psychopathy. In the present study, we apply an under-utilized statistical approach (i.e., dominance analysis) to assess the relative importance of CU traits, antagonism, and disinhibition in the prediction of externalizing behaviors in youth, cross-sectionally and at 9-month follow-up. Using a multi-informant (youth- and parent-report), multi-method (questionnaire, ecological momentary assessment [EMA]) preregistered approach in a diverse sample of clinically referred youth (M_age = 12.60 years, SD = .95 years, 47% female; 61% racial/ethnic minority), we found youth- and parent-reported psychopathy features accounted for a significant proportion of variance in externalizing behavior cross-sectionally and longitudinally. However, results provided limited support for our preregistered hypotheses. While antagonism and disinhibition had larger general dominance weights relative to CU traits for both youth- and parent-report, most differences were non-significant. Thus, the interpersonal, affective, and behavioral psychopathy features could not be distinguished from one another in terms of their importance in the prediction of externalizing behavior, assessed cross-sectionally or longitudinally. Taken together, the results highlight promising avenues for future research on the relative importance of youth psychopathy features.

volgende artikel Deficits in Parent Knowledge of Behavior Management Skills is Strongly Associated With CD Symptoms but not ODD Symptoms

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

This measure includes three subscales (callousness, uncaring, unemotional), two of which have shown consistent reliability and moderate effect sizes in relation to externalizing behavior (Cardinale & Marsh, 2020).

Where the trait components of the PSCD fit within structural models of maladaptive personality remains an open question. For example, Sleep and colleagues (2020) examined the structure of antagonistic traits using 200 self-report items taken from various antagonism-related scales. At a relatively general level of specificity where three factors were examined, the factors (termed callousness, ruthless self-interest, and disconstraint) appear to significantly overlap with the callous-unemotional, grandiose-manipulative, and daring-impulsive traits of the PSCD. However, more structural research is needed to explicate how the PSCD fits within dimensional models of maladaptive personality.

The other five groups included youth with 1) externalizing behaviors only; 2) CU traits only; 3) other psychopathic features only (i.e., interpersonal, behavioral); 4) externalizing behaviors plus CU traits; and 5) a control group that had low scores externalizing behaviors, CU traits, and other psychopathic features.

Researchers often cite the seminal article by Farrington and Loeber (2000) when offering justifications for dichotomizing continuous variables. However, Iselin and colleagues (2013) highlight that many of the arguments in Farrington and Loeber (2000) do not stand up to empirical scrutiny. Iselin and colleagues (2013) ultimately conclude that it remains difficult to justify the dichotomization of continuous variables.

The total number of submodels examined in dominance analysis is equal to (2^p – 1), where p is the number of predictor variables.

Though we do not discuss the goals and benefits of preregistration in detail, we refer interested readers to Lakens (2019) and Nosek et al. (2019) for insightful discussions of preregistration and its relevance to psychological science.

Ethnoracial composition for youth was 42% White, 40.7% Black, 3.7% Hispanic/Latino, 0.6% American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 16.7% multiracial.

Ethnoracial composition for caregivers was 53.7% White, 39.5% Black, 1.9% Hispanic/Latino, 0.6% Asian, and 6.2% multiracial.

Youth and parents completing both assessments were compared to those with missing data (i.e., those who only completed the first assessment) on all demographic covariates (age, sex, minority status, receipt of public assistance). Youth and parents with complete data did not differ from those who only completed the first assessment.

The alpha estimates for youth- and parent-reported antagonism are based on the inclusion of the hostility item. When the hostility item was excluded from the antagonism scale (i.e., antagonism was assessed with four items), the alpha values were .74 and .77 for youth- and parent-reported antagonism, respectively.

Compliance was high, with the average youth completing 91.1% of prompts at baseline and 9-month follow-up, and the average parent completing 90% of prompts at baseline, and 90.7% at 9-month follow-up.

The ratio of events to non-events for the “yell or argue” item was 226/1,238 at wave 1 (58% of youth self-reporting at least one event), and 157/1,135 at wave 2 (45% of youth reporting at least one event). The ratios for “break or damage property” item were 26/1,438 at wave 1 (only 8% of youth reporting at least one event), and 8/1,285 at wave 2 (only 6% of youth reporting at least one event).

These alternative EMA items, while still having a relatively low base rate, had less imbalanced ratios. At baseline, the ratio was 116/366 for yelling at someone (41% of youth reporting at least one event), and 46/436 for hitting/slamming/punching someone or something (19% of youth reporting at least one event). At 9-month follow-up, the respective ratios were 79/334 (34% of youth reporting at least one event) and 33/380 (17% of youth reporting at least one event).

Dominance analysis uses R² as an index of model fit and partitions R² based on the relative contributions of each predictor in the regression model. R² is straightforward to compute in linear regression models because it is the ratio of variance in the outcome accounted for by the model relative to variance not accounted for (i.e., residual variance). However, in multilevel models there are multiple residual variance components (e.g., level 1 residual variance and level two residual variance) which complicates how R² is used to index model fit. In the original preregistration for the study, we stated that would make use of the S&B R²₂ metric outlined in Luo & Azen (2013) which is based on the approach of Snijders and Bosker (1994) designed to estimate an R² analogue for level-2 variables in multilevel models. However, this approach was not appropriate for dichotomous outcomes assessed via EMA. To correctly model the dichotomous EMA outcomes, we instead used an approach for obtaining R² from generalized linear multilevel models as described by Nakagawa and Schielzeth (2013). Briefly, two variations of R² can be examined in multilevel models—marginal R² which is the variance explained by fixed effects, and conditional R² which is the variance explained by the entire model (both fixed and random effects). Based on our primary research questions, we are most interested in the fixed effects of the model and thus, focus on marginal R² when estimating general dominance weights for the EMA outcomes.

Emotional reactivity was assessed using the Affective Instability subscale from the PAI-A (Morey, 2007) administered at screening. This subscale is comprised of 6 items and assesses the tendency to experience intense, prolonged emotional responses and rapid and/or extreme changes in emotion. This subscale internal consistency was α = 0.62.

Aggression was assessed via youth- and parent-report at baseline and 9-month follow-up using the Aggressive Behavior subscale from the YSR (Achenbach, 1991) and CBCL (Achenbach, 1999). This subscale is comprised of 17 and 18 items, respectively, that assess engagement in a variety of aggression behaviors. This subscale showed good internal consistency at baseline (youth-report α = 0.89; parent-report α = 0.90) and follow-up (youth-report α = 0.87; parent-report α = 0.90).

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Integrative guide for the 1991 CBCL/4–18, YSR, and TRF profiles: Department of Psychiatry. University of Vermont.

Achenbach, T. M. (1999). The Child Behavior Checklist and related instruments. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment (pp. 429–466). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Satistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Association. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.744053

Andershed, H., Colins, O. F., Salekin, R. T., Lordos, A., Kyranides, M. N., & Fanti, K. A. (2018). Callous-Unemotional Traits Only Versus the Multidimensional Psychopathy Construct as Predictors of Various Antisocial Outcomes During Early Adolescence. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 40, 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-018-9659-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Anderson, J. L., Sellbom, M., & Salekin, R. T. (2018). Utility of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 – Brief Form ( PID-5-BF ) in the Measurement of Maladaptive Personality and Psychopathology. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116676889

Azen, R., & Budescu, D. V. (2003). The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Methods, 8(2), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.8.2.129CrossRefPubMed

Bergstrøm, H., & Farrington, D. P. (2018). Grandiose-manipulative, callous-unemotional, and daring-impulsive: the prediction of psychopathic traits in adolescence and their outcomes in adulthood. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 8, 333–344. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCP-07-2018-0029CrossRef

Bring, J. (1994). How to standardize regression coefficients. The American Statistician, 48, 209–213.

Cardinale, E. M., & Marsh, A. A. (2020). The reliability and validity of the inventory of callous unemotional traits: a meta-analytic review. Assessment, 27, 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117747392CrossRefPubMed

Chambers, C. D., & Tzavella, L. (2022). The past, present and future of Registered Reports. Nature Human Behaviour, 6, 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01193-7CrossRefPubMed

Cohen, J. (1983). The cost of dichotomization. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 249–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168300700301CrossRef

Colins, O. F., Andershed, H., Salekin, R. T., & Fanti, K. A. (2018). Comparing Different Approaches for Subtyping Children with Conduct Problems: Callous-Unemotional Traits Only Versus the Multidimensional Psychopathy Construct. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 40, 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-018-9653-yCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Colins, O. F., Bisback, A., Reculé, C., Batky, B. D., López-Romero, L., Hare, R. D., & Salekin, R. T. (2022). The Proposed Specifiers for Conduct Disorder (PSCD) Scale: Factor structure and validation of the self-report version in a forensic sample of Belgian youth. Assessment, Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911221094256CrossRef

Colins, O. F., Fanti, K. A., & Andershed, H. (2021). The DSM-5 Limited Prosocial Emotions Specifier for Conduct Disorder: Comorbid Problems, Prognosis, and Antecedents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 60, 1020–1029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2020.09.022CrossRefPubMed

Dadds, M. R., Fraser, J., Frost, A., & Hawes, D. J. (2005). Disentangling the Underlying Dimensions of Psychopathy and Conduct Problems in Childhood: A Community Study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 400–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.400

Dawson, N. V., & Weiss, R. (2012). Dichotomizing continuous variables in statistical analysis: A practice to avoid. Medical Decision Making, 32, 225–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X12437605CrossRefPubMed

Decuyper, M., De Caluwé, E., De Clercq, B., & De Fruyt, F. (2014). Callous-unemotional traits in youth from a DSM-5 trait perspective. Journal of Personality Disorders, 28, 334–357. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2013_27_120CrossRefPubMed

Déry, M., Bégin, V., Toupin, J., & Temcheff, C. (2019). Clinical utility of the limited Prosocial emotions Specifier in the childhood-onset subtype of conduct disorder. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 64(12), 838–845.CrossRefPubMed

Donohue, M. R., Hoyniak, C. P., Tillman, R., Barch, D. M., & Luby, J. (2021). Callous-unemotional traits as an intervention target and moderator of PCIT-ED treatment for preschool depression and conduct problems. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 60(11), 1394–1403.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Edens, J. F., Marcus, D. K., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Poythress, N. G. (2006). Psychopathic, not psychopath: Taxometric evidence for the dimensional structure of psychopathy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.115.1.131CrossRefPubMed

Edens, J. F., Marcus, D. K., & Vaughn, M. G. (2011). Exploring the taxometric status of psychopathy among youthful offenders: Is there a juvenile psychopath taxon? Law and Human Behavior, 35, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9230-8CrossRefPubMed

Fanti, K. A., Kyranides, M. N., Lordos, A., Colins, O. F., & Andershed, H. (2018). Unique and interactive associations of callous-unemotional traits, impulsivity and grandiosity with child and adolescent conduct disorder symptoms. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 40, 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-018-9655-9CrossRef

Farrington, D. P., & Loeber, R. (2000). Some benefits of dichotomization in psychiatric and criminological research. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 10, 100–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.349CrossRef

Feczko, E., Miranda-Dominguez, O., Marr, M., Graham, A. M., Nigg, J. T., & Fair, D. A. (2019). The Heterogeneity Problem: Approaches to Identify Psychiatric Subtypes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23, 584–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.03.009

Fossati, A., Somma, A., Borroni, S., Markon, K. E., & Krueger, R. F. (2017). The personality inventory for DSM-5 brief form: evidence for reliability and construct validity in a sample of community-dwelling Italian adolescents. Assessment, 24, 615–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115621793CrossRefPubMed

Frick, P. J. (2009). Extending the construct of psychopathy to youth: Implications for understanding, diagnosing, and treating antisocial children and adolescents. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 54, 803–812. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370905401203CrossRefPubMed

Frick, P. J., & Hare, R. D. (2001). Antisocial process screening device technical manual. Multi-Health Systems.

Frick, P. J., Lilienfeld, S. O., Ellis, M., Loney, B., & Silverthorn, P. (1999). The association between anxiety and psychopathy dimensions in children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27(5), 383–392. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021928018403

Frick, P. J., Ray, J. V., Thornton, L. C., & Kahn, R. E. (2014). Annual research review: A developmental psychopathology approach to understanding callous-unemotional traits in children and adolescents with serious conduct problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 55(6), 532–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12152CrossRefPubMed

Frick, P. J., Ray, J. V., Thornton, L. C., & Kahn, R. E. (2014). Can callous-unemotional traits enhance the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of serious conduct problems in children and adolescents? A comprehensive review. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033076CrossRefPubMed

Frogner, L., Andershed, A. K., & Andershed, H. (2018). Psychopathic personality works better than CU traits for predicting fearlessness and ADHD symptoms among children with conduct problems. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 40, 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-018-9651-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Grömping, U. (2015). Variable importance in regression models. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 7, 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.1346CrossRef

Guay, J. P., Ruscio, J., Knight, R. A., & Hare, R. D. (2007). A taxometric analysis of the latent structure of psychopathy: Evidence for dimensionality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.116.4.701CrossRefPubMed

Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 217–246. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452CrossRefPubMed

Hawes, S. W., Mulvey, E. P., Schubert, C. A., & Pardini, D. A. (2014). Structural coherence and temporal stability of psychopathic personality features during emerging adulthood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 123, 623–633. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037078CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hyatt, C. S., Zeichner, A., & Miller, J. D. (2019). Laboratory aggression and personality traits: a meta- analytic review. Psychology of Violence, 9, 675–689. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000236CrossRef

Iselin, A. M. R., Gallucci, M., & DeCoster, J. (2013). Reconciling questions about dichotomizing variables in criminal justice research. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 386–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.07.002CrossRef

Kahn, R. E., Byrd, A. L., & Pardini, D. A. (2013). Callous-Unemotional Traits Robustly Predict Future Criminal Offending in Young Men. Law and Human Behavior, 37, 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/b0000003.Callous-UnemotionalCrossRefPubMed

Kimonis, E. R., Frick, P. J., Skeem, J. L., Marsee, M. A., Cruise, K., Centifanti, L. C., Aucoin, K. J., & Morris, A. S. (2008). Assessing callous-unemotional traits in adolescent offenders: Validation of the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 31, 241–252.

Kliem, S., Krieg, Y., Klatt, T., & Baier, D. (2021). Dimensional Latent Structure of Callous-Unemotional Traits in German Adolescents: Results from Taxometric Analyses. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, Advance On, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-021-00885-y

Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., Skodol, A. E. (2013). The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form (PID-5-BF). Retrieved from: https://www.psychiatry.org/getmedia/f65c4386-b2bc-44a5-9ace-d6fea2211506/APA-DSM5TR-ThePersonalityInventoryForDSM5BriefFormAdult.pdf

Lakens, D. (2019). The value of preregistration for psychological science: A conceptual analysis. Japanese Psychological Review, 62(3), 221–230. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/jbh4wCrossRef

LeBreton, J. M., Baysinger, M. A., Abbey, A., & Jacques-Tiura, A. J. (2013). The relative importance of psychopathy-related traits in predicting impersonal sex and hostile masculinity. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 817–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.009

Luo, W., & Azen, R. (2013). Determining Predictor Importance in Hierarchical Linear Models Using Dominance Analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 38, 3–31. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998612458319CrossRef

Lynam, D. R., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2008). The Stability of Psychopathy From Adolescence Into Adulthood: The Search for Moderators. In Criminal Justice and Behavior (Vol. 35, pp. 228–243). https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807310153

Lynam, D. R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Raine, A., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2005). Adolescent psychopathy and the big five: Results from two samples. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 431–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-5724-0CrossRefPubMed

Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2015). Psychopathy from a basic trait perspective: The utility of a five-factor model approach. Journal of Personality, 83(6), 611–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12132CrossRefPubMed

MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7, 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.19CrossRefPubMed

Maples, J. L., Carter, N. T., Few, L. R., Crego, C., Gore, W. L., Samuel, D. B., Williamson, R. L., Lynam, D. R., Widiger, T. A., Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Miller, J. D. (2015). Testing whether the DSM-5 personality disorder trait model can be measured with a reduced set of items: An item response theory investigation of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 1195–1210. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000120

Matlasz, T. M., Frick, P. J., & Clark, J. E. (2021). A Comparison of Parent, Teacher, and Youth Ratings on the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits. Assessment, Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211047893CrossRef

Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2015). Psychopathy and Personality: Advances and Debates. Journal of Personality, 83(6), 585–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12145CrossRefPubMed

Morey, L. C. (2007). Personality assessment inventory (PAI): professional manual. PAR (Psychological Assessment Resources).

Murray, A. L., Eisner, M., Ribeaud, D., & Booth, T. (2022). Validation of a Brief Measure of Aggression for Ecological Momentary Assessment Research: The Aggression-ES-A. Assessment, 29(2), 296–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120976851

Murrie, D. C., Marcus, D. K., Douglas, K. S., Lee, Z., Salekin, R. T., & Vincent, G. (2007). Youth with psychopathy features are not a discrete class: A taxometric analysis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 48, 714–723. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01734.xCrossRefPubMed

Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.xCrossRef

Nimon, K. F., & Oswald, F. L. (2013). Understanding the results of multiple linear regression: beyond standardized regression coefficients. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 650–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113493929CrossRef

Nosek, B. A., Beck, E. D., Campbell, L., Flake, J. K., & Hardwicke, T. E. (2019). Preregistration is hard and worthwhile. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(10), 815–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.009CrossRefPubMed

R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

Ritchie, M. B., Neufeld, R. W., Yoon, M., Li, A., & Mitchell, D. G. (2022). Predicting youth aggression with empathy and callous unemotional traits: A Meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 98, 102186.

Royston, P., Altman, D. G., & Sauerbrei, W. (2006). Dichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: A bad idea. Statistics in Medicine, 25, 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2331CrossRefPubMed

Salekin, R. T. (2017). Research Review: What do we know about psychopathic traits in children? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 58(11), 1180–1200. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12738CrossRefPubMed

Salekin, R. T., Andershed, H., Batky, B. D., & Bontemps, A. P. (2018). Are Callous Unemotional (CU) Traits Enough? Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 40, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-018-9663-9CrossRef

Salekin, R. T., & Hare, R. D. (2016). Proposed specifiers for conduct disorder (PSCD) scale. Unpublished test.

Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. J. (1994). Modeled variance in two-level models. Sociological Methods and Research, 22, 342–363.CrossRef

Sleep, C. E., Crowe, M. L., Carter, N. T., Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2020). Uncovering the Structure of Antagonism. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 12(4), 300–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000416

Sleep, C. E., Crowe, M. L., Carter, N. T., Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2021). Uncovering the structure of antagonism. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 12(4), 300–311.CrossRef

Spector, P. E., Rosen, C. C., Richardson, H. A., Williams, L. J., & Johnson, R. E. (2019). A new perspective on method variance. Journal of Management, 45(3), 855–880.CrossRef

Stoffel, M. A., Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2021). partR2: Partitioning R2 in generalized linear mixed models. PeerJ, 9, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11414CrossRef

Verschuere, B., Yasrebi-De Kom, F. M., van Zelm, I., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2021). A plea for preregistration in personality disorders research: The case of psychopathy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 35(2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2019_33_426CrossRefPubMed

Vize, C.E., Collison, K. L., Crowe, M. L., Campbell, W. K., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2019a). Using Dominance Analysis to Decompose Narcissism and Its Relation to Aggression and Externalizing Outcomes. Assessment, 26(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116685811

Vize, C. E., Collison, K. L., & Lynam, D. R. (2020). The importance of antagonism: Explaining similarities and differences in psychopathy and narcissism’s relations with aggression and externalizing outcomes. Journal of Personality Disorders, 34(6), 842–854. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2020_34_342CrossRefPubMed

Vize, C. E., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2018). FFM facets and their relations with different forms of antisocial behavior: An expanded meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 57, 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.04.004CrossRef

Vize, C. E., Collison, K. L., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2019b). Using Bayesian methods to update and expand the meta-analytic evidence of the five-factor model’s relation to antisocial behavior. Clinical Psychology Review, 67, 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2018.09.001CrossRefPubMed

Walters, G. D. (2014). The latent structure of psychopathy in male adjudicated delinquents: A cross-domain taxometric analysis. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5, 348–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000088CrossRef

Watters, C. A., Sellbom, M., Uliaszek, A. A., & Bagby, R. M. (2019). Clarifying the interstitial nature of facets from the personality inventory for DSM–5 using the five factor model of personality. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 10, 330–339.CrossRef

Williams, K. M., Paulhus, D. L., & Hare, R. D. (2007). Capturing the four-factor structure of psychopathy in college students via self-report. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88(2), 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701268074CrossRefPubMed

Wright, A. G. C., & Zimmermann, J. (2019). Applied Ambulatory Assessment: Integrating Idiographic and Nomothetic Principles of Measurement. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1467–1480.

Zimmermann, J., Woods, W. C., Ritter, S., Happel, M., Masuhr, O., Jaeger, U., Spitzer, C., & Wright, A. G. C. (2019). Integrating structure and dynamics in personality assessment: First steps toward the development and validation of a personality dynamics diary. Psychological Assessment, 31(4), 516–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000625

Titel: The Relative Importance of Psychopathy Features as Predictors of Externalizing Behaviors in Youth: A Multimethod Examination
Auteurs: Colin E. Vize
Amy L. Byrd
Stephanie D. Stepp
Publicatiedatum: 30-01-2023
Uitgeverij: Springer US
Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment / Uitgave 1/2023
Print ISSN: 0882-2689
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-3505
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-022-10017-5

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2023

Development and Validation of an Arabic Version of the World Health Organization Well-Being Index (WHO-5)

Are Perceived Executive Functions Beneficial for Adolescents Who Experience Peer Victimization?

Narcissus Going Public: Pathological Narcissism and Reactions to Public vs. Private Exposure in Ego-relevant Events

Deficits in Parent Knowledge of Behavior Management Skills is Strongly Associated With CD Symptoms but not ODD Symptoms

Assessing Internalizing Symptoms and Their Relation with Levels of Impairment: Evidence-Based Cutoffs for Interpreting Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms (IDAS-II) Scores

Multi-informant Assessment of Internalizing Concerns: Rater Concordance and Implications for Decision-Making