The Utility of Expert-Rated and Self-Report Assessments of Youth Psychopathic Traits for Predicting Felony Recidivism Among Formerly Incarcerated Youth

• Published date: 01 October 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/15412040241256574
• Author: Corey H. Allen,J. Michael Maurer,Aparna R. Gullapalli,Bethany G. Edwards,Eyal Aharoni,Nathaniel E. Anderson,Carla L. Harenski,Kent A. Kiehl
• Date: 01 October 2024
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

2024, Vol. 22(4) 231–250

© The Author(s) 2024

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/15412040241256574

journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj

The Utility of Expert-Rated and

Self-Report Assessments of

Youth Psychopathic Traits for

Predicting Felony Recidivism

Among Formerly Incarcerated

Youth

Corey H. Allen

1

, J. Michael Maurer

1

, Aparna R. Gullapalli

1

,

Bethany G. Edwards

1

, Eyal Aharoni

2

, Nathaniel E. Anderson

1

,

Carla L. Harenski

1

, and Kent A. Kiehl

1,3

Abstract

Psychopathic traits assessed with expert-rated instruments are well-established predictors for

both general and violent felony recidivism outcomes in adjudicated youth. However, it is not clear

whether self-report assessments of psychopathic traits show similar predictive value. The current

study evaluated both expert-rated (i.e., the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version [PCL: YV])

and self-report measures (i.e., the Childhood Psychopathy Scale, Inventory of Callous Un-

emotional Traits, Antisocial Process Screening Device, and the Youth Psychopathic Traits In-

ventory) assessing youth psychopathic traits for predicting general and violent felony recidivism

among formerly incarcerated high-risk male adolescents (n= 275). Scores on both expert-rated

and self-report instruments were signif‌icantly associated with a shorter time to felony rearrest

into early adulthood (with an average follow-up window of 11 years). However, the expert-rated

PCL:YV, but not self-report measures, provided signif‌icant utility for predicting violent felony

arrest. These results suggest that in general, youth psychopathic traits, regardless of the specif‌ic

instrument used, are predictors of general felony rearrest outcomes, while the expert-rated PCL:

YV alone provides utility for predicting the most severe crimes (i.e., violent felonies). The

strengths and limitations of the assessment modalities are discussed.

1

The Mind Research Network, Albuquerque, NM, USA

2

Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA

3

Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA

Corresponding Authors:

Corey H. Allen, Mind Research Network, 1101 Yale Blvd. NE, Albuquerque, NM 87106-3834, USA.

Email: callen@mrn.org

Kent A. Kiehl, Mind Research Network, 1101 Yale Blvd. NE, Albuquerque, NM 87106-3834, USA.

Email: kkiehl@mrn.org

Keywords

psychopathy, juvenile delinquency, expert-rated, self-report, rearrest, violence

Introduction

Psychopathy is a construct def‌ined by a combination of affective and behavioral traits, such as a

lack of empathy, guilt and remorse and poor planning, decision-making, and impulsivity. In-

dividuals scoring high on psychopathic traits are at an elevated risk for criminal behavior and are

estimated to account for $460 billion in US crime per year, including $56.7 billion attributed to

juveniles with elevated psychopathic traits (Kiehl & Hoffman, 2011). Accordingly, the construct

of psychopathy has garnered longstanding interest in the f‌ields of psychology, criminology, and

neuroscience, establishing a need for reliable and well-validated assessment instruments to be

deployed in a variety of contexts and population cohorts. Assessments designed to measure

psychopathic traits in youth are often administered to children and adolescents in legal contexts to

assess individual risk for future antisocial behavior, including criminal activity leading to de-

tainment and/or rearrest. There are a number of instruments that have been designed to assess

psychopathic traits among children and adolescents, but experts continue to debate which ap-

proach is best (Edens et al., 2015;Ray et al., 2013;Sellbom et al., 2018).

The most common and accepted assessment of psychopathic traits among adults in forensic

samples is Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003). The Hare PCL-R consists

of an in-depth f‌ile review (e.g., institutional f‌ile records) and a semi-structured interview con-

ducted by a trained expert. Based on the information garnered from these two components, the

individual is scored across 20 items, which typically cluster into two factors: interpersonal/

affective (e.g., a grandiose sense of self-worth and a lack of remorse for their actions) and lifestyle/

antisocial psychopathic traits (e.g., impulsivity and poor anger control) (Hare, 2003;Harpur et al.,

1989). Importantly, because of the semi-structured interview and f‌ile review format of the PCL-R,

assessment of psychopathic traits can be made even in adversarial contexts, such as interviewing a

participant who is prone to lying or refuses to answer questions during the interview. Indeed, the

PCL-R may be validly scored from just f‌ile information alone if the individual refuses to par-

ticipate in the assessment. Given that many consider the PCL-R to be the “gold-standard”for

evaluating psychopathic traits, this measure has been adapted for use among adolescents via the

Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV; Forth et al., 2003), which consists of age

appropriate items and factor breakdowns similar to the PCL-R (Forth et al., 2003;Neumann et al.,

2006).

Alternatives to expert-rated assessments, including self-reported psychopathic trait measures,

have existed in clinical and research settings for many decades. Self-report measures of youth

psychopathic traits were primarily developed to facilitate ease of administration and to compare

various models of psychopathic symptoms (Andershed et al., 2002;Frick, 2004;Frick & Hare,

2001;Lynam, 1996;Munoz & Frick, 2007). Commonly used self-report assessments include the

Childhood Psychopathy Scale (CPS; Lynam, 1996), Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits

(ICU; Frick, 2004), Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD; Munoz & Frick, 2007), and the

Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory (YPI; Andershed et al., 2002). Most of the above scales

mirror the psychometric properties of the PCL-R/YV in assessing psychopathic trait clusters. As

such, prior research indicates strong positive relationships between these various expert-rated and

self-report assessments of psychopathic traits (Fink et al., 2012). Nonetheless, the same research

also shows that the various assessments of psychopathic traits (i.e., the PCL:YV, APSD, CPS,

ICU, and YPI) suffer from low convergent validity in establishing high-risk individuals (Fink

et al., 2012), suggesting that their predictive utilities of antisocial outcomes may also be divergent.

232 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 22(4)