Antisocial Process Screening Device Subscales Predict Recidivism in an Australian Juvenile Offender Sample
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.
KeywordsAdolescent psychopathy Callous-unemotional traits Juvenile offending Recidivism Self-report
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
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.
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.
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.
- American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric PublishingGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Barker, C., Pistrang, N., & Elliot, R. (1994). Research methods in clinical and counselling psychology: John Wiley & Sons.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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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
- 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/10.1037/1040-35220.127.116.112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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
- 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
- Lee, E. T., & Wang, J. (2003). Statistical methods for survival data analysis (Vol. 476): John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. K. (2012). Mplus Version 7: User’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
- Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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
- 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