Search

Purpose: Poythress, Edens, et al. (2010) recently used cluster analysis to identify subtypes of antisocial and psychopathic offenders using a diverse collection of theoretically important clustering variables. Two predicted subtypes, primary and secondary psychopathy, were identified, in addition to non-psychopathic and (unexpectedly) "fearful" psychopathic offenders. The purpose of the present research was to determine whether these clusters could be replicated using a single self-report measure, the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996). Method: Study 1: We used discriminant function analysis (DFA) to predict cluster membership for the Poythress et al. subtypes based solely on the eight subscales of the PPI. Results: Study 1: Though overall classification accuracy with the original clusters was poor, PPI-derived subtypes differed from each other in theoretically consistent ways on several criterion measures. Method: Study 2: We used the PPI-based DFA to classify a separate sample of prison inmates from a prior PPI study (Edens et al., 2008). Results: Study 2: As predicted, inmates classified into the secondary psychopathy subgroup demonstrated the highest rates of aggressive misconduct whereas non-psychopathic were the least prone to engage in misconduct. Conclusion: The PPI may serve as a relatively simple method of identifying theoretically meaningful subtypes of psychopathic offenders., CODEN: JCJUD

Few studies have compared self-report and clinician-administered measures of youth psychopathic features in juvenile-justice settings in terms of antisocial behavior and treatment indices. In a sample of 85 adjudicated delinquents, the predictive validities of the Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD), the modified Childhood Psychopathy Scale (mCPS), and the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV) were tested. Three indices of institutional antisocial behavior (physical aggression; verbal aggression; administrative infractions) and two indices of treatment progress (time to treatment level promotion; whether treatment levels were dropped) were used as external correlates. The self-report measures (mCPS more so than APSD) were more consistently and strongly related to antisocial behavior and to the days required to progress in treatment than the PCL:YV. The following issues are discussed: (i) implications of the potential impact of measurement format on the understanding and predictive validity of youth psychopathy features and measures; (ii) the differential predictive validity of self-report versus clinician-administered measures; and (iii) the potential practical utility of measures of psychopathic features in youth. Copyright (C) 2004 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.