Assessment of “juvenile psychopathy” and its association with violence: a critical review*

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.

The relation of psychopathy to concurrent aggression and antisocial behavior in high‐risk adolescent girls and boys

“…As some researchers in the field have implied (e.g. Edens et al, 2001;Hart et al, 2002;Kosson et al, 2002), the fluidity of adolescent identity and personality may preclude the interpersonal features of psychopathy from being crystallized to a sufficient degree to be reliably measured in adolescents. However, the reliability of factor 1 was acceptable in the current study (a ¼ 0.66; ICC 1 ¼ 0.93), suggesting that the lack of significant relationships was not merely due to measurement or rater error.…”

“…Despite the construct's utility as an indicator of risk for future violence, few studies have explicitly examined gender differences in the expression and relation of psychopathy to aggression, violence, or non-violent criminal behavior. Recent studies suggest that the manifestation of psychopathy may change as a function of age and gender, calling for a modified conceptualization and measurement of the construct in non-adult and female populations (see, e.g., in adolescent males, Edens, Skeem, Cruise, & Cauffman, 2001; Vincent, unpublished dissertation; in adolescent females, Salekin, Rogers, & Machin, 2001; in adult women, Jackson, Rogers, Neumann, & Lambert, 2002;Salekin, Rogers, Ustad, & Sewell, 1998). …”

“…Together, these hypotheses imply that the assessment of personality-based characteristics of psychopathy-such as an egocentric, callous, and manipulative interpersonal style-rather than behavioral features may more sensitively detect psychopathy in females. It will be important to appreciate, however, that if different dimensions of psychopathy carry more significance in female populations and are differentially associated to aggression and criminality across gender, this will have significant implications for the assessment of psychopathy and risk for violence in female populations (Edens et al, 2001). …”

“…At the same time, significant concerns have been raised about limitations in research and ethical dilemmas related to the application of what is generally viewed as a stable adult personality syndrome to developing youth (Edens et al, 2001;Hart, Watt, & Vincent, 2002;Seagrave & Grisso, 2002). Experts have pointed out that some indicators of psychopathy involve signs and processes that are common characteristics of adolescents (Edens et al, 2001;Frick, 2002;Seagrave & Grisso, 2002), and therefore should not be pathologized to the extent that they would be in adults. These issues are even more concerning when considering the situation of female youth, for whom limited evidence exists to support the validity of psychopathic features in relation to violence and aggression.…”

Can a Laboratory Measure of Emotional Processing Enhance the Statistical Prediction of Aggression and Delinquency in Detained Adolescents with Callous-unemotional Traits?

“…First, the meta-analyses in adult offending samples and the extensions to samples of youth suggest that, while CU traits are a significant predictor of future offending, there is still quite a bit of variance in offending risk not explained by measures of these traits. Second, a number of researchers have raised concerns about measuring these traits in adolescent samples, where some level may be developmentally normative (Edens et al 2001;Seagrave and Grisso 2002). Third, there have been concerns about methods for assessing CU traits that rely either solely (Munoz and Frick 2007) or in part (Forth et al 2003) on self-report and, as a result, are subject to either intentional or unintentional reporter biases (Lee et al 2003).…”