Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The correlated two- (CU, impulsivity/CP) and three-factor (CU, grandiose-manipulative, impulsivity) models identified in studies of the original parent-report version (Frick et al. 2000) excluded item 2 (‘Engages in illegal activities’) due to stipulations by the school and item 6 (‘Lies easily’) because of inconsistent loadings and similarity with the lying symptom of Conduct Disorder to minimize overlap (Frick, personal communication, 2017).

  2. EFA were conducted instead of CFA given research finding that CFA fit statistics are often too conservative for accurate evaluation of personality inventories (Hopwood and Donnellan 2010; Marsh et al. 2013).

  3. EFA were repeated in SPSS 23 and factor loadings remained the same.

  4. To address overlap, negative binomial regression analyses with criminal history outcomes and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses with recidivism outcomes were repeated with item 2 (‘Engages in illegal activities’) removed from the impulsivity subscale. With regard to criminal history, with scores entered as single predictors, the impulsivity subscale remained a significant predictor of total (Odds Ratio [OR] = 1.23, p = .000, CI [1.13, 1.33]), nonviolent (OR = 1.26, p = .000, CI [1.16, 1.37]), and violent (OR = 1.13, p = .005, CI [1.04, 1.24]) prior charges, and negatively associated with prior sexual (OR = .61, p = .004, CI [.44, .85]) charges. When subscales were entered simultaneously into the model, impulsivity also remained a significant predictor of total (OR = 1.24, p = .000, CI [1.13, 1.36]), nonviolent (OR = 1.29, p = .000, CI [1.17, 1.41]) and violent (OR = 1.11, p = .04, CI [1.01, 1.24]) prior charges, and negatively associated with prior sexual charges (OR = .50, p = .001, CI [.32, .76]). With regard to recidivism, with scores entered as single predictors, the impulsivity subscale remained a significant predictor of nonviolent (χ2 [1] = 9.52, HR = 1.25, p = .002, CI [1.08, 1.45]) and violent reoffenses (χ2 [1] = 12.27, HR = 1.34, p = .001, CI [1.13, 1.58]). When subscales were entered simultaneously into the model, impulsivity also remained a significant predictor nonviolent (χ2 [1] = 15.16, HR = 1.21, p = .024, CI [1.03, 1.43]) and violent reoffenses (χ2 [1] = 17.85, HR = 1.26, p = .019, CI [1.04, 1.52]).

  5. Cox proportional hazard regression analyses predicting nonviolent and violent offenses were repeated with two- and three-way interactions between APSD-SR subscales, and between each subscale and K-SADS-PL CD diagnoses, and no significant interactions were found.

References

  • Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52(3), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, C., Pistrang, N., & Elliot, R. (1994). Research methods in clinical and counselling psychology: John Wiley & Sons.

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forth, A. E., Kosson, D. S., & Hare, R. D. (2003). The psychopathy checklist: Youth version manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frick, P. J., & Hare, R. D. (2001). Antisocial Process Screening Device Technical Manual Toronto: Multi-health systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E. T., & Wang, J. (2003). Statistical methods for survival data analysis (Vol. 476): John Wiley & Sons.

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. K. (2012). Mplus Version 7: User’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

  • Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

    Natalie Goulter & Eva R. Kimonis

  2. Juvenile Justice New South Wales, Department of Justice, Sydney, Australia

    Eric Heller

Authors
  1. Natalie Goulter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eva R. Kimonis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eric Heller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natalie Goulter.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goulter, N., Kimonis, E.R. & Heller, E. Antisocial Process Screening Device Subscales Predict Recidivism in an Australian Juvenile Offender Sample. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 40, 159–168 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-018-9669-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-018-9669-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation