Advertisement

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

  • Natalie Goulter
  • Eva R. Kimonis
  • Eric Heller
Article

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.

Keywords

Adolescent psychopathy Callous-unemotional traits Juvenile offending Recidivism Self-report 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by NSW Department of Juvenile Justice, NSW Health Centre for Aboriginal Health, and NSW Department of Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All study procedures received ethical approval from the NSW Juvenile Justice Research Committee, the NSW Justice Health Human Research and Ethics Committee, the Correctional Services NSW ethics committee, the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council ethics committee, and the University of New South Wales human research ethics advisory panel, and were in accordance with APA ethical guidelines for research with human participants.

Informed Consent

All participants provided informed consent, and parental consent was obtained for those under the age of 14 years.

Conflict of Interest

Natalie Goulter, Eva R. Kimonis, and Eric Heller declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Experiment Participants

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were inaccordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee, and with the1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52(3), 317–332.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric PublishingGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barker, C., Pistrang, N., & Elliot, R. (1994). Research methods in clinical and counselling psychology: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.
  8. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forth, A. E., Kosson, D. S., & Hare, R. D. (2003). The psychopathy checklist: Youth version manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  17. Frick, P. J., & Hare, R. D. (2001). Antisocial Process Screening Device Technical Manual Toronto: Multi-health systems.Google Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee, E. T., & Wang, J. (2003). Statistical methods for survival data analysis (Vol. 476): John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. K. (2012). Mplus Version 7: User’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  33. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyThe University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Juvenile Justice New South Wales, Department of JusticeSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations