No abstract

Interest in the construct of psychopathy as it applies to children and adolescents has become an area of considerable research interest in the past 5-10 years, in part due to the clinical utility of psychopathy as a predictor of violence among adult offenders. Despite interest in "juvenile psychopathy" in general and its relationship to violence in particular, relatively few studies specifically have examined whether operationalizations of this construct among children and adolescents predict various forms of aggression. This article critically reviews this literature, as well as controversies regarding the assessment of adult psychopathic "traits" among juveniles. Existing evidence indicates a moderate association between measures of psychopathy and various forms of aggression, suggesting that this construct may be relevant for purposes of short-term risk appraisal and management among juveniles. However, due to the enormous developmental changes that occur during adolescence and the absence of longitudinal research on the stability of this construct (and its association with violence), we conclude that reliance on psychopathy measures to make decisions regarding long-term placements for juveniles is contraindicated at this time.

Youth in secure juvenile justice settings (e.g., detention, incarceration) often have histories of complex trauma: exposure to traumatic stressors including polyvictimization, life-threatening accidents or disasters, and interpersonal losses. Complex trauma adversely affects early childhood biopsychosocial development and attachment bonding, placing the youth at risk for a range of serious problems (e.g., depression, anxiety, oppositional defiance, risk taking, substance abuse) that may lead to reactive aggression. Complex trauma is associated with an extremely problematic combination of persistently diminished adaptive arousal reactions, episodic maladaptive hyperarousal, impaired information processing and impulse control, selfcritical and aggression-endorsing cognitive schemas, and peer relationships that model and reinforce disinhibited reactions, maladaptive ways of thinking, and aggressive, antisocial, and delinquent behaviors. This constellation of problems poses significant challenges for management, rehabilitation, and treatment of youth in secure justice settings. Epidemiological and clinical evidence of the prevalence, impact on development and functioning, comorbidity, and adverse outcomes in adolescence of exposure to complex trauma are reviewed. Implications for milieu management, screening, assessment, and treatment of youth who have complex trauma histories and problems with aggression in secure juvenile justice settings are discussed, with directions for future research and program development.

No abstract

The self-report version of the Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD) has become a popular measure for assessing psychopathic features in justice-involved adolescents. However, the internal consistency reliability of its component scales (Narcissism, Callous-Unemotional, and Impulsivity) has been questioned in several studies. This study evaluates the internal consistency reliability of the self-report APSD by examining various indices (e.g., Cronbach's alpha, mean interitem correlation) across 11 studies. Whereas the Narcissism and Impulsivity scales display moderate to good reliability, internal consistency indices for the Callous-Unemotional scale are consistently poor across studies. Suggestions are made for revisions to this scale that would substantially improve its internal consistency reliability.

The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV; Nicholls, Viljoen, Cruise, Desmarais, & Webster, 2010; Viljoen, Cruise, Nicholls, Desmarais, & Webster, in preparation) is a clinical guide designed to assist in the assessment and management of adolescents’ risk for adverse events (e.g., violence, general offending, suicide, victimization). In this initial validation study, START:AV assessments were conducted on 90 adolescent offenders (62 male, 28 female), who were prospectively followed for a 3-month period. START:AV assessments had good to excellent inter-rater reliability and strong concurrent validity with Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth assessments (SAVRY; Borum, Bartel, & Forth, 2006). START:AV risk estimates and Vulnerability total scores predicted multiple adverse outcomes, including violence towards others, offending, victimization, suicidal ideation, and substance abuse. In addition, Strength total scores inversely predicted violence, offending, and street drug use. During the 3-month follow-up, risk estimates changed in at least one domain for 92% of youth, and 27% of youth showed reliable changes in Strength and/or Vulnerability total scores (reliable change index, 90% confidence interval; Jacobsen & Truax, 1991). While these findings are promising, a strong need exists for further research on the START:AV, the measurement of change, and on the role of strengths in risk assessment and treatment-planning.

Juvenile offenders have a high prevalence of trauma exposure and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, as well as aggressive behavior. However, relationships between exposure to different specific types of traumatic events, PTSD symptoms, and aggression have not been systematically investigated. Subgroups of male juvenile offenders were identified based on their self-reported exposure to different types of traumatic events. Male juvenile offenders who endorsed multiple types of trauma exposure or traumatic exposure involving violence endorsed higher levels of PTSD symptomatology but not selfreported aggression. In addition, meeting the DSM-IV PTSD diagnosis Criterion A for traumatic exposure was associated with more severe emotional and behavioral problems in the youth who were exposed to community violence. Implications for theory and research on violent trauma and polyvictimization, and the use of self-report trauma history and PTSD measures for screening, with youth involved in the juvenile justice system, are discussed.

Comprehensive forensic evaluations are predicated on the accurate appraisal of response styles that may affect evaluatees' clinical presentation and experts' conclusions associated with psycholegal isslIes. In the assessment of malingering, forensic experts often rely heavily on standardized measures that have been validated exclusively via analogue research. While sllch research augments intemal validity, the threats to external validity are readi(v apparent. As the first study of these threats, type of incel/tive (positive verslIs negative), context (a familiar versus IInfamiliar scenario), and relevance to the participants was investigated ~}'stematically with a between-subjects factorial design. A sample of 231 undergraduates was asked 10 either (a) feign major depression and given on easily understood description of this disorder or (b) serve as controls responding .lOnestly. They were administered a brief measure of psychopathology (Hopkins Symptom Checklist; Derogatis, Lipmall, Rickels, Uhlenhuth, & Cov;, 1974) and a recent screen for malingering (Screening InventOlY of Malingered Symptoms or SIMS; Smith, 1992) in 1 of 18 experimental conditions. Results suggested that incentive had a main effect on the SIMS. MOle ~pecifically, simulators Ilnder negative incentives appeared more focused in their feigning; they produced more bogus depressed symptoms, bill fewer symptoms unrelated /0 depression. Interactions were also observed between context and incentive, and context and relevance. Implications of these results are explored for both analogue research on malingering and current forensic practice.A cornerstone of forensic evaluations is the effective evaluation of malingering and related response styles. Given the adversarial nature of most forensic assessments, psychologists and other mcntal health profes.~ionals must address the potential for malingering for nearly all psycholegal issues (Rogers & Mitchell, 1991). Recent survey data (Rogers, Salek in, Sewell, & Goldstein, 1996; Rogers, Sewell, & Goldstein, in press) suggest that the prevalence of malingering varies widely across forensic settings, but is likely to compose approximately one sixth of all forensic cases. With malingering as both a critical and common issue in forensic assessments, the empirical bases of these determinations are crucial.