Factor Structure of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL: YV) in Incarcerated Adolescents Craig S. Neumann University of North Texas David S. Kosson Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science Adelle E. Forth Carleton University Robert D. Hare University of British Columbia Two studies are reported on the underlying dimensions of the psychopathy construct in adolescents as measured by the Hare Psychopathy Checklist���Youth Version (PCL: YV Forth, Kosson, & Hare, 2003). In Study 1, the PCL: YV item ratings for 505 male adolescents incarcerated in 5 different settings in North America were used to test the fit of 3 models that have been hypothesized to represent the structure of psychopathy in adults. A 4th model based on parceling PCL: YV items was also tested. In Study 2, these models were tested with a sample of 233 male adolescents incarcerated in 2 facilities in the United Kingdom. Model fit results indicated that the 18-item 4-factor model developed by Hare (2003) and a modified version of a 13-item 3-factor model developed by Cooke and Michie (2001) were associated with generally good fit. Because the 4-factor model is a less saturated model than the 3-factor model (better parameter to data point ratio), it survived a riskier test of disconfirmation. Implications for the nature of psychopathy in youth are discussed. Keywords: adolescents, psychopathy, confirmatory factor analysis, four-factor model, antisocial behavior The construct of psychopathy is now well validated among men and, to a lesser extent, among women (Hare, 2003 Jackson, Rogers, Neumann, & Lambert, 2002 Richards, Casey, & Lucente, 2003 Salekin, Rogers, & Sewell, 1997 Warren et al., 2003). In adults, the construct is understood in terms of disturbances in interpersonal and affective functioning and impulsive behavioral and antisocial tendencies (Hare & Neumann, 2005). An emerging literature suggests support for the existence of a similar construct among adolescents (Forth et al., 2003 Frick & Marsee, 2006 Hare & Neumann, 2006 Kosson, Cyterski, Steuerwald, Neumann, & Walker-Matthews, 2002 Salekin, Neumann, Leistico, & DiCicco, 2004). Investigators have been cautious in applying the psychopathy construct to children and adolescents given that definitions and assessments of psychopathy have primarily originated from re- search with adults and examination of psychopathic traits in youth is a relatively new area of investigation (Frick & Marsee, 2006 Lynam, 2002). Researchers have highlighted the developmental challenges of assessing such traits in children and adolescents and the potentially grave consequences of labeling a youth as psycho- pathic (Edens, Skeem, Cruise, & Cauffman, 2001 Hart, Watt, & Vincent, 2002 Johnstone & Cooke, 2004 Ogloff & Lyon, 2000 Seagrave & Grisso, 2002 Zinger & Forth, 1998). None of the psychopathy measures provides a cutoff for labeling a child or an adolescent as psychopathic, and several manuals explicitly warn against doing so (Forth et al., 2003 Frick & Hare, 2001). Thus, it is inappropriate to refer to an adolescent as psychopathic for numerous reasons, and there continues to be extensive discussion on the meaning of psychopathic features in youth (Lynam, 2002 Petrila & Skeem, 2003). Most researchers agree that personality involves an extended developmental process (Heatherton & Weinberger, 1994) that ne- cessitates evolvement of broad traits and characteristic adaptations (Cloninger, 1998 Zuckerman, 1991), which show increased sta- bility with age (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005 McCrae et al., 2002). From the perspective of an emerging developmental science of personality, childhood temperament can be conceptualized with respect to adult personality structure, and adult personality can be understood in terms of its childhood antecedents (Caspi et al., 2005). Thus, psychopathic personality in adulthood is likely to have its origins in childhood and adolescent development. Several lines of research are consistent with a developmental perspective in understanding psychopathy. For instance, childhood antisocial tendencies are some of the earliest and most persistent indicators of adult psychopathy (Hare, 1999 Robins, 1966). Re- Craig S. Neumann, Department of Psychology, University of North Texas David S. Kosson, Department of Psychology, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science Adelle E. Forth, Department of Psychology, Carleton University Robert D. Hare, Department of Psychol- ogy, University of British Columbia. We are grateful to Michael Caldwell, LeAnn Carney, Ray Corrado, Derek Indoe, Eldon Olson, Roy O���Shaughnessy, Kathleen Lewis, Todd Willoughby, and Gina Vincent for providing much of the data analyzed in these studies. These samples are described in greater detail in the PCL: YV Manual (Forth, Kosson, & Hare, 2003). Adelle E. Forth, David S. Kosson, and Robert D. Hare are coauthors of the Psychopathy Checklist���Youth Version (PCL���YV), published by Multi-Health Systems, Inc., 3770 Vic- toria Park Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M2H 3M6 and receive royalties from its sale. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Craig S. Neumann, Department of Psychology, P.O. Box 311280, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203. E-mail: csn0001@unt.edu Psychological Assessment Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association 2006, Vol. 18, No. 2, 142���154 1040-3590/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.142 142

cent youth studies (Frick, Kimonis, Dandreaux, & Farell, 2003 Kosson et al., 2002 Piatigorsky & Hinshaw, 2004) have provided evidence of psychopathic traits in children, traits that are stable over time (Frick et al., 2003). Behavioral genetic studies conducted with children (Viding, Blair, Moffitt, & Plomin, 2005), adolescents (Larsson, Andershed, & Lichtenstein, in press), and adults (Bloni- gen, Carlson, Krueger, & Patrick, 2003) all provide evidence that psychopathic traits are highly heritable. In longitudinal research (Frick et al., 2003), initial levels of antisocial behavior in children significantly predicted the stability of psychopathic traits in ado- lescents 5 years later. Related to this latter finding, investigators (Taylor, Loney, Bobadilla, Iacono, & McGue, 2003 Viding et al., 2005) have reported bivariate analyses that suggest genetic influ- ence on the covariance of psychopathy scales reflecting emotional detachment and antisocial tendencies. Taken together, these stud- ies provide evidence for the presence and development of psycho- pathic features in youth and for some stability in mechanisms underlying them. It remains to be established whether such fea- tures reflect the same latent dimensions as in adults. Frick (2002) has advocated that research on psychopathic ten- dencies in youth be informed by a developmental perspective. Consistent with this recommendation, Forth and colleagues created the Hare Psychopathy Checklist���Youth Version (PCL: YV Forth et al., 2003). The PCL: YV was based on the same 20 items as the Hare Psychopathy Checklist���Revised (Hare, 2003). However, the titles and descriptions of the dispositions assessed, sources of information to be used, and scoring criteria for most of the items were modified to reflect the different contexts in which adoles- cents function and to ensure appropriate attention to developmen- tal norms. Table 1 lists the PCL: YV items. Although the empirical literature on adolescents is relatively small compared with that on adults, youth psychopathy studies provide evidence of substantive validity in showing a pattern of links with external correlates similar to that seen in the adult literature. This pattern includes links with violence, aggression, institutional maladjustment, recidivism, substance abuse, deviant interpersonal behavior, and poorer attachment to family members (Brandt, Kennedy, Patrick, & Curtin, 1997 Catchpole & Gretton, 2003 Corrado, Vincent, Hart, & Cohen, 2004 Forth, 1995 Forth, Hart, & Hare, 1990 Gretton, Hare, & Catchpole, 2004 Gretton, McBride, Hare, O���Shaughnessy, & Kumka, 2001 Kosson et al., 2002 Murrie, Cornell, Kaplan, McConville, & Levy-Elkon, 2004 Salekin, Neumann, Leistico, & DiCicco, 2004 Stafford & Cornell, 2003 Vincent, Vitacco, Grisso, & Corrado, 2003 Vitacco, Neu- mann, Caldwell, & Leistico, & Van Rybroek, in press).1 Structural validity is another component of construct validation that involves the accuracy with which latent variable models correctly represent the processes underlying the construct of inter- est. Although there are isolated factor analytic studies, no studies have been published that systematically examine the latent struc- ture of the PCL: YV. Current Models for the Structure of Psychopathy Three latent variable models have been proposed for represent- ing the factor structure underlying the PCL���R (Hare, 2003) in adults. All three models are potentially applicable to PCL: YV ratings in determining whether psychopathy in youth is structurally similar to that in adults. The most widely used is a two-factor PCL���R model originally reported by Harpur, Hakstian, and Hare (1988 Hare et al., 1990 Harpur, Hare, & Hakstian, 1989). In this model, 17 of the 20 items in the PCL���R load on two correlated dimensions. The first, commonly referred to as Factor 1, represents interpersonal and affective features of psychopathy. The second, commonly referred to as Factor 2, reflects chronic impulsive, irresponsible, and antisocial tendencies. These factors show dif- ferential correlations with external criteria, including psychiatric diagnoses, personality scale scores, emotional processing perfor- mance, and risk for recidivism and violence (Harpur et al., 1989 Patrick, Zempolich, & Levenston, 1997). The PCL���R items load- ing on each factor are listed in Table 2. For convenience, the item titles are those used in the PCL: YV. Although the two-factor model has played an important role in advancing research on psychopathy, a review of the exploratory factor analytic (EFA) research on the PCL instruments with adults 1 In some domains, the pattern of correlations in youth studies is not always consistent with that seen in adult studies. For example, although psychopathy is generally independent of anxiety among adults (Newman & Schmitt, 1998), the relationship between psychopathy and negative affec- tivity scores in adolescents is less clear, with several studies reporting positive associations (Kosson et al., 2002 Salekin, Neumann, Leistico, & DiCicco, 2004) and others reporting a negative relationship (Murrie & Cornell, 2000) or no relationship (Campbell, Porter, & Santor, 2004). Table 1 Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL: YV) Items and Means and Standard Deviations for North American and United Kingdom Samples Item Study 1 Study 2 M SD M SD 1. Impression management 0.93 0.79 0.89 0.76 2. Grandiose sense of self-worth 1.04 0.79 0.71 0.79 3. Stimulation seeking 1.57 0.65 1.68 0.60 4. Pathological lying 1.31 0.67 0.76 0.80 5. Manipulation for personal gain 1.27 0.70 1.28 0.71 6. Lack of remorse 1.58 0.66 1.12 0.79 7. Shallow affect 1.24 0.76 0.74 0.79 8. Callous/lacking empathy 1.57 0.62 1.03 0.77 9. Parasitic orientation 0.92 0.69 0.99 0.70 10. Poor anger tolerance 1.51 0.69 1.51 0.74 11. Impersonal sexual behavior 1.26 0.85 0.83 0.81 12. Early behavior problems 1.39 0.82 1.31 0.85 13. Lacks goals 1.33 0.71 1.13 0.84 14. Impulsivity 1.56 0.61 1.57 0.66 15. Irresponsibility 1.61 0.57 1.42 0.68 16. Failure to accept responsibility 1.62 0.57 1.28 0.80 17. Unstable interpersonal relationships 1.43 0.74 0.83 0.81 18. Serious criminal behavior 1.62 0.59 1.39 0.78 19. Serious violations of conditional release 1.30 0.80 0.66 0.82 20. Criminal versatility 1.52 0.69 0.81 0.83 PCL: YV total score 27.56 7.67 21.91 8.00 Note. Item titles are from The Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Ver- sion by A. E. Forth, D. S. Kosson, and R. D. Hare, 2003, Toronto: Multi-Health Systems, Inc. Copyright 2003 by R. D. Hare and Multi- Health Systems, Inc., 3770 Victoria Park Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Can- ada M2H 3M6. All rights reserved. Reprinted by permission. Note that the items cannot be scored without reference to the formal criteria contained in the PCL: YV Manual. 143 HARE PSYCHOPATHY CHECKLIST: YOUTH VERSION