Psychopathy has traditionally been viewed as a two-factor construct composed of core personality and antisocial features. This two-factor model was called into question by Cooke and Michie. Specifically, Cooke and Michie proposed a three-factor model that divided the original first factor into interpersonal and affective factors. The traditional second factor was reduced to only including irresponsible and impulsive behaviors, thereby deemphasizing antisocial characteristics. Recently, Hare found evidence of a four-factor model that reincorporates antisocial items. The current study examined two-, three-, and four-factor structures in adolescent offenders (N = 130) via confirmatory factor analyses. The results suggest that the two-factor model was a poor fit; however, three-and four-factor models evidenced good fit and were justifiable. These findings have important implications for the construct validity of the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version. Implications for potential developmental trajectories, dangerousness, and treatment are discussed.

Evaluation of juvenile offenders considered for transfer to adult court entails consideration of three factors: (a) potential risk of dangerousness, (b) level of sophistication-maturity, and (c) treatment amenability. Despite the centrality of these concepts to dispositional decision making, virtually no information or guidelines exist describing how juvenile court judges or mental health professionals should weigh these constructs when making vivid line distinctions with respect to transfer. The authors asked judges (N ϭ 361) from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges to examine a hypothetical case that varied the level of dangerousness, sophistication-maturity, and treatment amenability. Results showed that dangerousness and sophistication-maturity had a significant impact on transfer, whereas amenability to treatment did not. Policy implications for this important area of law and psychology are threefold: (a) Although individualized assessments may be preferred, key to such evaluations are specific guidelines for weighing Kent criteria; (b) eventually, a national standard should be adopted to outline how to weigh criteria and to reduce disparity across states; and (c) psychologists should continue to refine juvenile assessment technology and ultimately the information they provide courts.

Purpose. In a series of studies, the authors developed the Victim Concern Scale (VCS) to assess levels of concern for diverse types of crime victims. The goal was to derive a psychometrically sound instrument and to assess victim concern in relation to other crime‐related attitudes and victim advocacy endorsements. Methods. Through several scale iterations, participant responses to the VCS were examined. Participants also completed measures of empathy and provided judgments about specific victim/crime scenarios. In addition, in two large samples (college [N = 276] and community [N = 478]), victim concern was compared with other attitudes, attributions and participant demographics. Results. Participants readily distinguished among different victims. Four factors emerged from the VCS. Raters endorsed the highest levels of concern for victims of violent crimes and the lowest level for ‘culpable’ victims. Women and older respondents showed higher levels of concern across all categories of victims. Both victim concern and emotional empathy influenced advocacy responses to victimization. Victim concern was unrelated to such traits and attitudes as authoritarianism, political ideology or punishment goals; moreover, a high level of concern for victims did not preclude endorsement of rehabilitative goals for offenders. Conclusions. The VCS appears to be a valid instrument for assessing levels of concern for victims. It differs meaningfully from measures of general empathy. The VCS could be used to assess differential attitudes across demographic groups or as a measure of change following exposure to educational or other persuasive intervention.

No abstract