Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Poythress, Edens, and Lilienfeld (1998) recently reported a moderately strong correlation between Hare's (1991) Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) and a newly developed self-report measure of psychopathy, the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI) of Lilienfeld and Andrews (1996), in an ethnically diverse sample of 50 inmates from a youthful offender prison. The present study reports follow-up data regarding disciplinary infractions in this sample and examines the utility of the PCL-R and PPI for identifying those at risk for institutional misbehavior. Generally modest, but statistically significant, correlations were obtained between both measures and indices of aggressive institutional behavior. Multiple regression analyses revealed that both measures accounted for common variance in the criterion but that neither accounted for significant unique variance. Results are discussed in terms of the clinical utility of these measures in populations of young offenders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]