Behavioral Sciences and the Law

Behav. Sci. Law 21: 771–786 (2003)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.intercience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/bsl.561

The Validity of the Antisocial

Process Screening Device as
a Self-Report Measure of
Psychopathy in Adolescent
Offenders
Zina Lee, Ph.D.,* Gina M. Vincent, Ph.D.,
Stephen D. Hart, Ph.D., and Raymond R.
Corrado, Ph.D.

There is a growing interest in the assessment of adolescent

psychopathy to enable early treatment and intervention.
Recently, a self-report measure has been developed to
assess psychopathic traits in adolescents. The Antisocial
Process Screening Device (APSD), a self-report measure
of psychopathic traits, and the Psychopathy Checklist:
Youth Version (PCL:YV), a clinical rating scale, were
administered to a sample of 100 incarcerated male adoles-
cent offenders to assess the concurrent validity of the
APSD. Results indicated that the APSD had limited con-
current validity with respect to the PCL:YV and that there
appears to be a method effect in the measurement of
psychopathy. Thus, it appears the APSD did not assess
psychopathy in a manner parallel to that of the PCL:YV.
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by a constellation of interperso-

nal, affective, and behavioral traits. Interpersonally, psychopaths are superficial and
egocentric; affectively, they are shallow and callous; and behaviorally, psychopaths
are impulsive and have a tendency to engage in risky, socially deviant behaviors

*Correspondence to: Zina Lee, Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University
Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada. E-mail: zlee@sfu.ca
Gina M. Vincent, Department of Psychiatry, University of Massachusetts Medical School; Stephen D.
Hart, Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University; Raymond R. Corrado, School of Criminol-
ogy, Simon Fraser University.
This paper is based on a thesis submitted by Zina Lee in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Arts. Data collection was supported by Grant R-410-98-1246 from the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council awarded to Raymond R. Corrado. Thanks to Irwin Cohen,
Melanie Boudreau, and the staff at the custody centers for their assistance in data collection, to Jim
Hemphill and Ray Koopman for their time and statistical advice, and to Paul Frick for his assistance.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

772 Z. Lee et al.

(Hare, 1996; Hare, Cooke, & Hart, 1999; Hare, Forth, & Strachan, 1992; Hart,
Hare, & Harpur, 1992). A substantial literature indicates that psychopathy is a
reliable, valid, and meaningful construct in adults. It is well established that
psychopathic offenders account for a disproportionate amount of crime (see, e.g.,
Hare, 1993; Hare et al., 1992), are more likely to commit violent offenses (Hare,
1996), have a higher rate of recidivism (see, e.g., Hart, Kropp, & Hare, 1988;
Hemphill, Hare, & Wong, 1998), and are less motivated and amenable to treatment
(see, e.g., Ogloff, Wong, & Greenwood, 1990; Rice, Harris, & Cormier, 1992; Seto
& Barbaree, 1999). These findings highlight the importance of assessing psycho-
pathy in criminal and forensic populations to guide decisions about placement and
management.

Psychopathy in Youth

Given that psychopathy is defined as a personality disorder, it is assumed that

psychopathic traits are manifested at an early age (Forth & Burke, 1998; Frick,
2002; Hare, 1993; Lynam, 2002), although there is debate with respect to this issue.
The major criticism of research on ‘‘adolescent psychopathy’’ is that there is no
systematic clinical or empirical literature supporting the validity of personality
disorders in general, or psychopathy in particular, prior to adulthood. Principles
of normal development and developmental psychopathology suggest that it may be
difficult or even impossible to establish with any reasonable certainty the presence of
fixed and maladaptive personality traits in childhood or adolescence (Edens, Skeem,
Cruise, & Cauffman, 2001; Hart, Watt, & Vincent, 2002; Seagrave & Grisso, 2002;
Vincent & Hart, 2002). On the one hand, the identification of psychopathic traits
and the development of instruments designed to assess for such traits holds the
potential for early intervention and treatment. As such, some argue that the call for
higher scrutiny should not be based solely on concerns surrounding the dangers that
such a label holds for juveniles as any construct should meet high standards of
reliability and validity (Frick, 2002). On the other hand, the ethical concerns raised
should not be taken lightly. The ultimate issue is whether psychopathic traits are
stable across adolescence. Adolescence is viewed as a period of change and
development in terms of cognition, identity, and socialization, which raises ques-
tions as to whether the interpersonal and affective traits of psychopathy can be
reliably assessed in juveniles. Therefore, recommendations that the term ‘‘adoles-
cent psychopathy’’ be interpreted with skepticism and caution are important to
emphasize given the potential use for such a label as evidence for harsher and longer
sentences, or to forecast negative treatment outcomes.
Although concerns exist, preliminary evidence using both the Psychopathy
Checklist—Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991) and the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised:
Youth Version (PCL:YV; Forth, Kosson, & Hare, 2003) suggests that psychopathic
traits can be assessed reliably in adolescents (see, e.g., Brandt, Kennedy, Patrick, &
Curtin, 1997; Forth, Hart, & Hare, 1990). The PCL-R is a 20-item symptom
construct rating scale, with items scored on a three-point scale (0 ¼ does not apply,
1 ¼ partially applies, 2 ¼ definitely applies). The PCL:YV is a revision of the PCL-R
for use in adolescent offenders, aged 12–17 inclusive, in which item definitions were
altered to be more developmentally appropriate. In delinquents, scores on the

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law 21: 771–786 (2003)
 Validity of the APSD 773

PCL-R and PCL:YV are associated with criminal versatility, violent and aggressive
behavior, increased risk for recidivism, and treatment non-compliance (see, e.g.,
Brandt et al., 1997; Forth, 1995; Forth et al., 1990; Forth & Mailloux, 2000;
Gretton, McBride, Hare, O’Shaughnessy, & Kumka, 2001; Myers, Burket, &
Harris, 1995; Toupin, Mercier, Déry, Côté, & Hodgins, 1995). Recent research
suggests that psychopathic traits can also be assessed reliably and validly in non-
incarcerated juveniles (Kosson, Cyterski, Steuerwald, Neumann, & Walker-
Matthews, 2002).

Antisocial Process Screening Device

In the interests of very early intervention, researchers are attempting to identify

psychopathic traits in children. The Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD;
Frick & Hare, 2001) is a rating scale designed to assess psychopathic traits in
children aged 6–13. It can be considered a ‘‘downward extension’’ of the PCL-R,
and in fact originally was called the Psychopathy Screening Device. The APSD
closely parallels its parent scale in format and content, containing 20 items that are
rated on a three-point scale by the child’s parent/guardian and teacher (Caputo,
Frick, & Brodsky, 1999; Frick, O’Brien, Wootton, & McBurnett, 1994). Like the
PCL-R, the APSD is thought to assess three clusters of psychopathic symptoms:
callous–unemotional traits, narcissism, and impulsivity. However, the factor struc-
ture is somewhat unclear. Originally, Frick et al. (1994) observed a two-factor
structure in a sample of 95 clinic-referred children, comprising callous–unemotional
traits and impulsivity/conduct problems. Subsequently, Frick, Bodin, and Barry
(2000) found a three-factor structure in a large sample of community and outpatient
children, comprising callous–unemotional traits, narcissism, and impulsivity. These
discrepant findings were likely the result of an inadequate sample size in the first
study; however, both factor structures were derived using principal component
analyses rather than optimal latent-trait analyses, such as confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA).
The existing evidence suggests that APSD ratings are associated with theoreti-
cally meaningful variables. Christian, Frick, Hill, Tyler, and Frazer (1997) found
that children who scored high on the APSD demonstrated more oppositional and
aggressive symptoms and had a higher rate of school suspensions than low scorers.
Studies have also found that children who score high on the callous–unemotional
factor of the APSD display a greater number and variety of conduct problems and
have more contact with police (Frick, 1995). Furthermore, there appears to be an
association between fearlessness and callous–unemotional traits (Barry, Frick,
DeShazo, McCoy, Ellis, & Loney, 2000; Frick, Lilienfeld, Ellis, Loney, & Silver-
thorn, 1999).
Recently, a self-report version of the APSD has been used to assess psychopathic
traits in adolescents. The self-report scale is similar to the parent and teacher rating
scales, with items re-written in the first person. Its development was premised on the
belief that self-report becomes more reliable and valid from childhood into adoles-
cence and that the unavailability of parents or teachers with sufficient knowledge to
complete the rating scales in forensic samples warrants a different approach (Frick,
Barry, & Bodin, 2000). There are limited studies of the validity of the self-report

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law 21: 771–786 (2003)
774 Z. Lee et al.

APSD. A CFA study identified a three-factor structure as having the best fit
(Vitacco, Rogers, & Neumann, 2003); however, fit indices for a unidimensional
model have yet to be reported. Vitacco et al. (2003) found that although the self-
report APSD had high sensitivity with respect to the PCL:YV in a sample of justice-
involved youth, the probability that an adolescent who scored over the APSD cut-off
of 20 would also meet criteria for psychopathy was only 47%. Caputo et al. (1999)
administered the self-report APSD to a group of male adolescent sex offenders,
violent non-sexual offenders, and property offenders and found that a greater
percentage of sex offenders received higher scores on the callous–unemotional
factor. The authors concluded that this is consistent with the association between
psychopathic traits and violent sexual offending in adults.
A study by Kruh, Frick, and Clements (in press) demonstrated preliminary
evidence for the potential predictive validity of the measure. The authors adminis-
tered the self-report APSD to a group of juvenile offenders and found that higher
levels of psychopathic traits were associated with a greater frequency and variety of
violence. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that the self-report APSD factors
assess distinct traits. Pardini, Lochman, and Frick (2003) found that the callous–
unemotional factor was associated with deficits in cognition and empathy whereas the
impulsivity/conduct problems factor was associated with behavioral dysregulation.
Although there appears to be some evidence for the utility of the self-report
APSD, concerns remain. Even in adults, efforts to develop valid self-report
measures have yielded mixed results. A number of studies have found that self-
report measures capture the behavioral features of psychopathy but fail to capture
the interpersonal and affective features (Edens, Hart, Johnson, Johnson, & Olver,
2000; Hare, 1985; Harpur, Hare, & Hakstian, 1989). Self-report measures also have
poor diagnostic accuracy (Brinkley, Schmitt, Smith, & Newman, 2001; Edens et al.,
2000; Poythress, Edens, & Lilienfeld, 1998). As such, many researchers advocate
against the use of self-report measures to assess psychopathy in offender populations
(e.g., Forth & Mailloux, 2000; Hare et al., 1999; Hare et al., 1992; Hart, Hare, &
Forth, 1994). Although self-report measures are beneficial in terms of being less
labor intensive (i.e., such measures can be completed faster than clinical rating
scales), such an advantage is of no value if the measure does not adequately assess
psychopathic traits.
Researchers have recently started to examine whether the APSD is correlated
with psychopathy as assessed using measures such as the PCL-R or PCL:YV.
Murrie and Cornell (2002) assessed the correspondence between the self-report
APSD and the PCL:YV, and the predictive accuracy of the APSD in a sample of
juvenile offenders. Results indicated moderate concurrent validity between the total
scores (r ¼ 0.30), little agreement between items, and relatively low predictive
accuracy. Therefore, the authors concluded that there were limitations of the
APSD as a screening instrument for psychopathy.
In this study, we examined the concurrent validity of the self-report APSD
with respect to the PCL:YV. Because the APSD was constructed to parallel
the PCL-R and PCL:YV, we expected that APSD scores should be strongly
concordant with PCL:YV scores at the level of item, factor, and total scores.
Also, as the self-report APSD was designed to screen for psychopathy in youth,
we expected that the APSD should have good predictive validity with respect to
PCL:YV diagnoses of psychopathy.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law 21: 771–786 (2003)
 Validity of the APSD 775

METHOD

Overview

Data from the present study were collected as part of a larger study that began in
1998 to investigate juvenile offending behavior and juveniles’ perceptions of the
criminal justice system. Comprehensive file reviews and interviews were conducted
with incarcerated juveniles at minimum and maximum security facilities to examine
the role of various social and psychological factors in juvenile offending.

Participants

Participants in this study were 100 male adolescent offenders incarcerated at three
juvenile custody centers in British Columbia, Canada. The participants were
recruited from offenders who were at the centers between the years of 2000 and
2003. Youth were approached to take part in the study, and informed their
participation was voluntary and their responses would be used strictly for research
purposes. Participants did not receive any rewards for their participation and those
who refused to participate did not incur any penalties. Ethics approval was obtained
from the university and institutional review boards prior to the start of the study. For
ethical reasons, data were not collected concerning reasons for refusal to participate
or the characteristics of those offenders who refused to participate.
Participants ranged in age from 14 to 19 years, with a mean age of 16.74 years
(SD ¼ 1.05). Most of the youth were Caucasian (60%), with the remainder of
Aboriginal (27%) or other (13%) descent. The average custodial disposition of the
participants was 166.05 days (SD ¼ 156.61). Participants were charged or convicted
of a variety of serious offenses, primarily crimes of violence (63%).

Measures and Procedure

Antisocial Process Screening Device

As noted previously, the APSD is a 20-item self-report scale modeled after the PCL-
R. Each item is rated on a three-point scale (0 ¼ not at all true, 1 ¼ sometimes true,
2 ¼ definitely true). The items are summed to yield a total score that can range from 0
to 40. We calculated factor scores based on the three-factor model of Frick et al.
(2000b) (Vitacco et al., 2003) as follows: Narcissism, sum of Items 5, 8, 10, 11, 14,
15, and 16; Callous–Unemotional, sum of Items 3, 7, 12, 18, 19, and 20; and
Impulsivity, sum of Items 1, 4, 9, 13, and 17. When items were omitted, factor and
total scores were prorated.
In this study, participants completed the APSD at the end of their interview.
APSD total scores ranged from 7 to 32, with a mean of 18.66 (SD ¼ 5.42).
The internal consistency of total scores was (Cronbach’s
) 0.77 and the mean
inter-item correlation was 0.14. The mean scores for the Narcissism, Callous–
Unemotional, and Impulsivity factors were 5.93 (SD ¼ 2.62), 4.59 (SD ¼ 1.99),
and 5.86 (SD ¼ 1.87), respectively. The internal consistencies of the Narcissism,

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law 21: 771–786 (2003)
776 Z. Lee et al.

Table 1. Correlations among the PCL:YV and APSD total and factor scores

APSD

PCL:YV Total Narcissism Callous–Unemotional Impulsivity

Total 0.40** 0.81** 0.62** 0.74**

Factor 1 0.61** 0.20 0.26** 0.44**
Factor 2 0.74** 0.45** 0.24* 0.27**
Factor 3 0.64** 0.18 0.20* 0.37**

*p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01; PCL:YV, Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (Forth et al., 2003); APSD,
Antisocial Process Screening Device (Frick & Hare, 2001). Correlations below the diagonal are those
among PCL:YV scores; those above the diagonal are those among APSD scores; and those on the
diagonal are those between corresponding PCL:YV and APSD scores.

Callous–Unemotional, and Impulsivity factors were 0.66, 0.48, and 0.57, respec-
tively. Pearson correlations among APSD total and factor scores are presented
above the diagonal in Table 1.1

Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version

The PCL:YV is a 20-item clinical rating scale modeled after the PCL-R (Forth et al.,
2003). Items are scored on a three-point scale (0 ¼ item does not apply, 1 ¼ item
applies in some respects, 2 ¼ item definitely applies) and summed to yield a total score
that can range from 0 to 40. Total scores represent the extent to which an adolescent
matches the prototypical psychopath. Items are omitted when there is insufficient
information to score them. In these cases, total scores for participants are prorated.
Numerous studies using the PCL:YV suggest that it is a reliable and valid assess-
ment instrument. Reviews have reported good internal consistency, ranging from
0.90 to 0.98 (Forth & Burke, 1998) and good to excellent inter-rater agreement,
ranging from 0.81 to 0.98 (Forth & Burke, 1998; Forth & Mailloux, 2000; Vincent
& Hart, 2002).
In this study, one of nine trained raters, on the basis of an interview and a review
of file information, made PCL:YV ratings blind to the participant’s APSD scores.
Total scores ranged from 4 to 34 with a mean of 20.44 (SD ¼ 5.69). The internal
consistency (Cronbach’s
) of total scores was 0.79 and the mean inter-item
correlation was 0.16. Inter-rater reliability was not evaluated in these participants.
However, inter-rater reliability was evaluated in the larger project from which the
current sample was drawn. Intraclass correlations, conducted using a two-way
random effects model, were very high (ICC1 ¼ 0.92) in a sub-sample of 30
randomly selected cases (Vincent, unpublished doctoral dissertation).

1
We tested a hierarchically related three-factor solution using EQS Version 5.7b (Bentler & Wu, 1998),
although the validity of these analyses should be considered highly speculative given the small sample size.
It is generally accepted that more than one index should be used for assessments of model fit (Hu &
Bentler, 1999). Here we will report the root mean squared errors of approximation (RMSEA), which
should be around 0.06 for good fit and 0.08 for acceptable fit (Byrne, 1994), and the comparative fit index
(CFI), which should be higher than 0.90 for acceptable fit. The CFA produced excellent indices of
absolute fit, RMSEA ¼ 0.06, but unacceptable indices of relative fit, CFI ¼ 0.78. On the recommenda-
tion of a thoughtful reviewer, we also tested an alternate three-factor model that involved adding Item 6 to
Factor 1 and rearranging the placement of another five items. This CFA produced exactly the same results
in terms of model fit.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law 21: 771–786 (2003)
 Validity of the APSD 777

The PCL:YV items can also be summed to yield factor scores, although the factor
structure is still under investigation. Early studies suggested the PCL:YV paralleled
the two-factor structure of adult psychopathy (Forth & Mailloux, 2000). Recently,
evidence from studies using latent-trait techniques suggests that a hierarchical three-
factor structure, comprising only 13 items, better defines psychopathy in adults
(Cooke & Michie, 2001). Extending this model to youth, Kosson et al. (2002)
found the two-factor model to have poor fit, whereas the three-factor hierarchical
structure was promising according to indices of absolute fit, but not indices of
relative fit. Unfortunately, we could not assess the validity of the hierarchical three-
factor model in the current sample due to its limited size. The model contains three
levels of factors (third-, second-, and first-order factors) and therefore many
parameters would need to be estimated. However, compelling evidence for the
model’s validity comes from Vincent (unpublished doctoral dissertation), who
assessed the PCL:YV factor structure in a larger sample of 269 youths from which
this sample was drawn. Using CFA procedures, Vincent (unpublished doctoral
dissertation) found that the hierarchical three-factor model of Cooke and Michie
(2001) achieved good indices of absolute and relative fit, and that all other models
evaluated were inferior using the same fit indices. Therefore, we calculated PCL:YV
factor scores as follows: Arrogant and Deceitful Interpersonal Style, sum of Items 1,
2, 4, and 5; Deficient Affective Experience, sum of Items 6, 7, 8, and 16; and
Impulsive and Irresponsible Behavioral Style, sum of Items 3, 9, 13, 14, and 15. The
mean Factor 1, Factor 2, and Factor 3 scores were 2.26 (SD ¼ 1.76), 4.32
(SD ¼ 1.86), and 4.81 (SD ¼ 1.76), respectively. The internal consistencies of the
Factor 1, Factor 2, and Factor 3 scores were 0.59, 0.63, and 0.44, respectively.
Pearson correlations among the total and factor scores are presented below the
diagonal in Table 1.

RESULTS

Concurrent Validity of Total and Factor Scores

The concurrent validity of total and factor scores on the APSD was indexed by
calculating their correlations with corresponding scores on the PCL:YV. These
findings are presented on the diagonal of Table 1. As the table indicates, the
correlation between total scores on the two scales was r ¼ 0.40, which is moderate in
magnitude. The correlations for factor scores were as follows: APSD Narcissism
with PCL:YV Factor 1, 0.20; APSD Callous–Unemotional with PCL:YV Factor 2,
0.24; and APSD Impulsivity with PCL:YV Factor 3, 0.37. With the exception of
Factor 1, all correlations were statistically significant ( p < 0.05), but small to
moderate in magnitude.
According to latent-trait theorists, one cannot assume that tests actually measure
the same construct or latent trait (in this case psychopathy) solely on the basis of
their correlations (see, e.g., Embretson & Reise, 2000; Hattie, 1985; McDonald,
1999). Accordingly, we used structural equation modeling (SEM) to investigate
whether the APSD and PCL:YV actually measured the same latent construct
despite differences in testing methods. We evaluated the equivalence of the APSD
and PCL:YV scores by performing SEM with EQS Version 5.7b (Bentler & Wu,

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law 21: 771–786 (2003)
778 Z. Lee et al.

1998). SEM can be used in conjunction with the multi-trait, multi-method

approach (Campbell & Fiske, 1959) to assess the construct validity, or convergent
and divergent validity, of more than one measure (Byrne, 1994). This requires a
comparison of special confirmatory factor analyses across variations of the corre-
lated-traits, correlated-methods model. These models entail loading observed
variables (factor scores) onto both trait (psychopathy) and method (self-report
versus clinical ratings) factors. Since the APSD and PCL:YV were designed to be
measures of the same trait, a CFA model that forces the trait factor to correlate
perfectly and allows the method factor to correlate freely should fit the data well.
This model should also have better fit than the fit of a model that does not include
the trait factor, and a model where both trait and method factors are free to
correlate.
We constrained the three factor scores of the APSD and PCL:YV onto two
separate superordinate trait factors and two method factors (i.e. self-report versus
clinical ratings) and fit the four CFA models. The fit of the correlated traits model
(2[2] ¼ 4.43, CFI ¼ 0.97) was adequate but it was not significantly better than the
model that did not force the traits to correlate (
2[1] ¼ 1.00, n.s.). Another CFA
model that contained only the two method factors showed a significant improve-
ment in fit (
2[6] ¼ 12.60, p < 0.05). Results of these comparisons imply that
there is a method effect in the measurement of psychopathy between the APSD and
the PCL:YV.

Diagnostic Efficiency of the APSD

To examine the diagnostic accuracy with which APSD total scores could identify
youths with high scores (i.e.
25) on the PCL:YV, receiver operating characteristic
(ROC) analyses were conducted. ROC curves plot the association between sensi-
tivity (the true positive rate) and 1—specificity (the false positive rate) for all
possible cut-off scores on the measure of interest. The area under the ROC curve
(AUC) is an index of the measure’s overall diagnostic accuracy. The AUC can range
from 0 to 1.0 where 0.5 indicates chance-level accuracy, greater than 0.5 indicates
above-chance accuracy, and less than 0.5 indicates below-chance accuracy. Here,
the AUC is the probability that a randomly selected juvenile, scoring 25 or more on
the PCL:YV, will have a higher score on the APSD than a randomly selected
juvenile with a PCL:YV score less than 25.2 The ROC curve for the APSD with
respect to a PCL:YV diagnosis of psychopathy is presented in Figure 1. The AUC
was 0.69 (SE ¼ 0.06), with a 95% confidence interval of 0.57–0.80, indicating low
predictive efficiency.3 Sensitivity was perfect for APSD scores of approximately 10
and under, whereas specificity was perfect for APSD scores of 29 and above. The
results did not suggest an appropriate cut-off that clearly maximized overall
diagnostic accuracy.
2
A cut-off of 25 was used for analyses because the traditional cut-off of 30 resulted in few participants
meeting the criterion for psychopathy (only three participants met this criterion on the APSD and six
participants met this criterion on the PCL:YV).
3
We conducted ROC analyses for a cut-off score of 30 and the diagnostic accuracy decreased when
compared with a cut-off score of 25. The AUC was 0.54 (SE ¼ 0.10), with a 95% confidence interval of
0.35–0.74.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law 21: 771–786 (2003)
 Validity of the APSD 779

Figure 1. Receiver operating characteristic curve for APSD as a predictor of scores
25 on the PCL:YV.

Correspondence Between Parallel Items

To further assess the concurrent validity of the APSD, correspondence was assessed
at the item level. Table 2 lists the PCL:YV items and parallel APSD items, and the 
coefficients between the parallel items. No  was calculated for PCL:YV Item 18
due to the lack of variability in PCL:YV ratings for this item (i.e., no participant
received a score of 0). Only 2 of the 19 parallel item pairs reached significance:
PCL:YV Item 8 (Callous or Lacking Empathy) with APSD Items 11 (‘‘You tease or
make fun of other people’’) and 18 (‘‘You are concerned about the feelings of
others’’).

Age Comparisons

To examine whether the age of the youth impacted the concurrent validity between
the two measures, we conducted several analyses. First, we examined agreement
between the APSD and PCL:YV controlling for age. The partial correlation coeffi-
cient for the total score was 0.39, and the partial correlations for the factors were as
follows: APSD Narcissism with PCL:YV Factor 1, 0.21; APSD Callous–Unemo-
tional with PCL:YV Factor 2, 0.24; and APSD Impulsivity with PCL:YV Factor 3,
0.37. All partial correlations were statistically significant, p < 0.05. The magnitudes of
the partial correlations were very similar to those of the zero-order correlations,
suggesting that age had little impact on the concurrent validity of the APSD.
Second, we examined the association among the measures by conducting a
median split of the sample by age. This resulted in 40 participants between the ages
of 14 and 16, and 60 participants between the ages of 17 and 19. In the younger

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law 21: 771–786 (2003)
780 Z. Lee et al.

Table 2. Kappa () coefficients between parallel PCL:YV and APSD items

PCL:YV APSD
item item 

1 Impression Management 14 Act charming and nice to 0.03

get things you want
2 Grandiose Sense of Self-Worth 8 Brags a lot about abilities, 0.13
accomplishments, or possessions
16 Think you are better or 0.12
more important than others
3 Stimulation Seeking 9 Get bored easily 0.07
13 Do risky or dangerous things 0.00
4 Pathological Lying 6 Lie easily and skillfully 0.01
5 Manipulation for Personal Gain 10 Use or ‘‘con’’ people to 0.12
get what you want
6 Lack of Remorse 12 Feel bad/guilty when you do 0.10
something wrong (R)
7 Shallow Affect 5 Emotions seem shallow and fake 0.12
19 Hide your feelings and 0.08
emotions from others
8 Callous or Lacking Empathy 11 Tease or make fun of other people 0.16*
18 Concerned about the 0.16*
feelings of others (R)
9 Parasitic Orientation No parallel item —
10 Poor Anger Control 15 Get angry when corrected 0.03
or punished
11 Impersonal Sexual Behavior No parallel item —
12 Early Behavior Problems No parallel item —
13 Lacks Goals 17 Do not plan ahead or leave things 0.12
until the ‘‘last minute’’
14 Impulsivity 4 Act without thinking of the 0.10
consequences
15 Irresponsibility 3 Care about how well you do 0.03
at school/work (R)
7 Good at keeping promises (R) 0.04
16 Failure to Accept Responsibility 1 Blame others for your mistakes 0.03
17 Unstable Interpersonal 20 Keep the same friends (R) 0.01
Relationships
18 Serious Criminal Behavior 2 Engage in illegal activities —
19 Serious Violations of No parallel item —
Conditional Release
20 Criminal Versatility No parallel item —

*p < 0.05; , Cohen’s kappa coefficient of agreement for ratings on corresponding PCL:YV and APSD
items; PCL:YV, Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (Forth et al., 2003); APSD ¼ Antisocial Process
Screening Device (Frick & Hare, 2001). APSD items flagged (R) are reverse scored.

participants, the correlation between total scores was 0.15, and the correlations
between the factor scores were as follows: APSD Narcissism with PCL:YV Factor 1,
0.03; APSD Callous–Unemotional with PCL:YV Factor 2, 0.14; and APSD
Impulsivity with PCL:YV Factor 3, 0.12. All of these correlations are small in
magnitude, and none were statistically significant. In the older participants, the
correlation between total scores was 0.49, and the correlations between the Factor
scores were as follows: APSD Narcissism with PCL:YV Factor 1, 0.30; APSD
Callous–Unemotional with PCL:YV Factor 2, 0.30; and APSD Impulsivity with
PCL:YV Factor 3, 0.46. All of these correlations were statistically significant
( p < 0.05) and are substantially larger than those observed in younger participants.
These findings suggest that age did influence the concurrent validity of the APSD,

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law 21: 771–786 (2003)
 Validity of the APSD 781

Figure 2. Receiver operating characteristic curve for younger participants (ages 14–16).

which had small correlations with the PCL:YV in younger participants and medium
to large correlations in older participants.
Finally, we conducted ROC analyses for the two age groups. The ROC curve for
juveniles between the ages of 14 and 16, presented in Figure 2, had an AUC of 0.55
(SE ¼ 0.11), with a 95% confidence interval of 0.32–0.77.4 Sensitivity was perfect at
APSD scores of 9 and under, whereas specificity was perfect at scores of 30 and
above. The ROC curve for juveniles between the ages of 17 and 19, presented in
Figure 3, had an AUC of 0.79 (SE ¼ 0.06), with a 95% confidence interval of 0.67–
0.90.5 Sensitivity was perfect at APSD scores of approximately 13 and under,
whereas specificity was perfect at scores of 29 and above.

DISCUSSION

The results of the present study suggested the APSD was a poor measure of
psychopathic traits in juvenile offenders. Although designed to parallel the PCL-R
in content, the APSD had low concurrent validity with respect to the PCL:YV. First,
APSD total and factor scores had disappointingly low correlations with correspond-
ing scores on the PCL:YV. The correlations were particularly poor for factors
tapping interpersonal and affective symptoms of psychopathy, and appeared to be
due in part to the impact of method variance on APSD scores. Second, APSD scores

4
We conducted ROC analyses for a cut-off score of 30 and the diagnostic accuracy increased when
compared with a cut-off score of 25. The AUC was 0.63 (SE ¼ 0.13), with a 95% confidence interval of
0.37–0.89.
5
We conducted ROC analyses for a cut-off score of 30 and the diagnostic accuracy decreased when
compared with a cut-off score of 25. The AUC was 0.52 (SE ¼ 0.12), with a 95% confidence interval of
0.29–0.75.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law 21: 771–786 (2003)
782 Z. Lee et al.

Figure 3. Receiver operating characteristic curve for older participants (ages 17–19).

had low predictive efficiency with respect to high scores on the PCL:YV. Third,
analyses at the item level revealed poor correspondence. Finally, the concurrent
validity of the APSD was influenced by age, with evidence of better validity in older
offenders and poorer validity in younger offenders.
Our findings were consistent with those of Murrie and Cornell (2002), who also
found only a moderate association between the two measures and little agreement at
the symptom level, although they did not examine the influence of age. Taken
together, these results suggest that the self-report APSD has very significant
limitations for the assessment of psychopathic traits in juvenile offenders, at least
as psychopathy is conceptualized and measured by the PCL:YV. The APSD
appears to assess the behavioral features of psychopathy with some validity, but
not the interpersonal or affective features of the disorder. These findings are entirely
consistent with previous studies of adult offenders (e.g. Edens et al., 2000; Harpur
et al., 1989; Hart et al., 1994).
There may be several reasons for the low validity of the APSD as a self-report
measure of psychopathic traits in juvenile offenders: self-report measures may be
inadequate for assessing all three symptom clusters of psychopathy, the PCL:YV
may be a poor standard for comparison, or there may be problems with the construct
of psychopathy in juveniles. With respect to the first issue, several hypotheses have
been put forth to try to explain why self-report measures fail to capture the
interpersonal, affective, and behavioral features of psychopathy (see Edens et al.,
2000). One hypothesis is that self-report measures do not contain enough items to
assess the interpersonal and affective features of psychopathy. This explanation
seems unlikely in the case of the APSD since items were selected to parallel the
PCL-R items. A second hypothesis is that self-report measures are susceptible to
impression management and response distortions. Psychopaths are often described

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law 21: 771–786 (2003)
 Validity of the APSD 783

as deceitful, manipulative, and prone to engage in pathological lying. Furthermore,

psychopaths often attempt to portray themselves in a positive light. Although this
provides a reasonable basis to infer response bias, as Edens et al. (2000) note, this
fails to explain why behavioral items are accurately reported in self-report measures.
Third, self-report measures may not be adequate to assess the interpersonal and
affective features of psychopathy because psychopaths lack insight into the con-
sequences of their behavior. In particular, psychopathic offenders appear to suffer
little or no distress and have a tendency to blame others for their problems
(Hare et al., 1999). This may be a result of their inability to evaluate their
interpersonal and affective traits, which then leads to inaccurate reports of these
traits. It may be that the reporting of behavioral traits is less prone to inaccuracy
because it relies on concrete, observable phenomena. In contrast, interpersonal and
affective features may rely more on abstract concepts and thought processes, which
are skills that may not be fully developed in adolescents.
A second potential reason for the low concurrent validity of the APSD is that the
PCL:YV was a poor ‘‘gold standard’’ of psychopathy. This study assumed that the
PCL:YV was the best method to assess psychopathy in juvenile offenders and,
therefore, a good measure of comparison for the APSD. However, there are
relatively few studies of the PCL:YV and validation of the measure is not yet
complete. In particular, the internal consistency of the total scores and the mean
inter-item correlation of the PCL:YV in the current sample were lower than those
found in previous studies (e.g. Brandt et al., 1997; Forth et al., 1990; Toupin et al.,
1995).
Finally, the low concurrent validity of the APSD may have been due to problems
with the construct of psychopathy in adolescence. Criticisms have recently emerged
regarding the assessment of psychopathy in youth (see, e.g., Edens et al., 2001b;
Hart et al., 2002; Seagrave & Grisso, 2002; Vincent & Hart, 2002). In particular, it
is questionable whether psychopathy can be assessed in juveniles given that
adolescence is viewed as a period of considerable psychosocial development. There
is a lack of research to suggest that psychopathic adolescents possess more of the
symptoms than normative adolescents (Edens et al., 2001b). Therefore, it may be
the case that some psychopathic symptoms are normative during adolescence.
Furthermore, studies indicate that various cognitive and behavioral traits, such as
time perspective, social perspective, and thrill seeking, change over the course of
adolescence (Edens et al., 2001b). These traits may affect the expression of the
interpersonal, affective, and behavioral traits of psychopathy. Finally, there is a lack
of evidence to suggest that psychopathic traits are stable across adolescence.
The results of the current study should be viewed in light of the following
limitations, which may impact the generalizability of the findings. First, results of the
multi-trait, multi-method analysis are tentative pending further exploration with
larger sample sizes. We defined our observed variables by factor scores rather than
item scores to reduce the number of parameters being estimated due to our sample
size. As the unidimensionality of the three-factor structure of the APSD used here
has yet to be established, hierarchical structural models need to be examined at the
item level and tested against the PCL:YV before we can conclude with certainty that
there is a method effect. Since the CFA for the APSD alone did not result in a good
model fit, we would not expect the overall fit indices of the SEM model to result in a
good model fit.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law 21: 771–786 (2003)
784 Z. Lee et al.

Second, the results are limited by the nature of the sample. In general, partici-
pants in this study represent serious, older male juvenile offenders. Future research
should examine whether these findings replicate in different groups, including non-
custodial juvenile offenders and female offenders. In particular, non-custodial
offenders may exhibit fewer psychopathic traits; it is possible that the validity of
the APSD may be even lower in such populations due to the restricted range of
psychopathic traits.
Third, we only examined the concurrent validity of the APSD with respect to the
PCL:YV. As noted previously, this seems like a good starting point, as the APSD
was designed primarily to ‘‘screen’’ or measure psychopathic traits in a manner
parallel to the PCL-R. But it may be that other facets of the APSD’s validity are
more impressive than its concurrent validity vis-à-vis the PCL:YV. For example, it
may be that the APSD predicts antisocial behavior, treatment response, or perfor-
mance on neurocognitive tests better than does the PCL:YV. Therefore, it is far too
early to recommend abandoning the self-report APSD altogether.
Finally, it is important to consider the context in which the study was conducted.
Participants were aware that the results were collected for the purposes of research
and that information would be kept confidential. Therefore, participants may have
been honest in their responses on the APSD, knowing that the results would not
have any practical consequences. It is unclear whether similar results would be
obtained if participants were under the impression that the results would have a
personal impact on treatment or management. Edens, Buffington, Tomicic, and
Riley (2001) administered a self-report psychopathy measure to a group of under-
graduates under two conditions: standard instructions and instructions to create a
good impression. The authors found that instructing participants to make a good
impression led to a significant decrease in scores by the high psychopathy group but
not the low psychopathy group. These results suggest that self-report measures may
be problematic when participants are aware that the measure may impact treatment
and decision-making in the criminal justice system. Therefore, the concurrent
validity of the APSD may be even lower in clinical–forensic settings due to concerns
about impression management.
Assessment instruments designed to measure psychopathic traits should be
scrutinized carefully to ensure they possess high reliability and validity. Issues
surrounding the assessment and diagnosis of psychopathy in adolescents highlight
the importance of adopting a critical approach. Researchers have raised important
concerns about diagnosing psychopathy in adolescents, such as the harmful con-
sequences of the diagnosis (Edens et al., 2001b; Vincent & Hart, 2002). Further-
more, there are doubts as to the stability of psychopathy in adolescents and whether
the construct of psychopathy even exists in adolescents. Given these concerns, any
attempt to assess psychopathy or psychopathic traits in adolescents should balance
the potential benefits (e.g. early intervention) from the potential consequences (e.g.
transfer to adult court) of labeling a juvenile a psychopath.

REFERENCES
Barry, C. T., Frick, P. J., DeShazo, T. M., McCoy, M. G., Ellis, M., & Loney, B. R. (2000). The
importance of callous–unemotional traits for extending the concept of psychopathy to children. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 335–340.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law 21: 771–786 (2003)
 Validity of the APSD 785

Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. C. (1998). EQS for Windows. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
Brandt, J. R., Kennedy, W. A., Patrick, C. J., & Curtin, J. J. (1997). Assessment of psychopathy in a
population of incarcerated adolescent offenders. Psychological Assessment, 9, 429–435.
Brinkley, C. A., Schmitt, W. A., Smith, S. S., & Newman, J. P. (2001). Construct validation of a self-
report psychopathy scale: Does Levenson’s self-report psychopathy scale measure the same constructs
as Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist—Revised? Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1021–1038.
Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic concepts, applications,
and programming. London: Sage.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait–
multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
Caputo, A. A., Frick, P. J., & Brodsky, S. L. (1999). Family violence and juvenile sex offending: The
potential mediating role of psychopathic traits and negative attitudes toward women. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 26, 338–356.
Christian, R. E., Frick, P. J., Hill, N. L., Tyler, L., & Frazer, D. R. (1997). Psychopathy and conduct
problems in children: II. Implications for subtyping children with conduct problems. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 233–241.
Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2001). Refining the construct of psychopathy: Towards a hierarchical model.
Psychological Assessment, 13, 171–188.
Edens, J. F., Buffington, J. K., Tomicic, T. L., & Riley, B. D. (2001a). Effects of positive impression
management on the Psychopathic Personality Inventory. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 235–255.
Edens, J. F., Hart, S. D., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, J. K., & Olver, M. E. (2000). Use of the Personality
Assessment Inventory to assess psychopathy in offender populations. Psychological Assessment, 12, 132–
139.
Edens, J. F., Skeem, J. L., Cruise, K. R., & Cauffman, E. (2001b). Assessment of ‘‘juvenile psychopathy’’
and its association with violence: A critical review. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 53–80.
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Forth, A. (1995). Psychopathy in adolescent offenders: Assessment, family background, and violence.
Issues in Criminological and Legal Psychology, 24, 42–44.
Forth, A. E., & Burke, H. C. (1998). Psychopathy in adolescence: Assessment, violence, and develop-
mental precursors. In D. J. Cooke, A. E. Forth, & R. D. Hare (Eds.), Psychopathy: Theory, research and
implications for society (pp. 205–229). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
Forth, A. E., Hart, S. D., & Hare, R. D. (1990). Assessment of psychopathy in male young offenders.
Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 342–344.
Forth, A. E., Kosson, D. S., & Hare, R. D. (2003). Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised: Youth Version.
Toronto: ON, Multi-Health Systems.
Forth, A. E., & Mailloux, D. L. (2000). Psychopathy in youth: What do we know? In C. B. Gacono (Ed.),
The clinical and forensic assessment of psychopathy: A practitioner’s guide (pp. 25–54). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Frick, P. J. (1995). Callous–unemotional traits and conduct problems: A two-factor model of psycho-
pathy in children. Issues in Criminological and Legal Psychology, 24, 47–51.
Frick, P. J. (2002). Juvenile psychopathy from a developmental perspective: Implications for construct
development and use in forensic assessments. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 247–253.
Frick, P. J., Barry, C. T., & Bodin, S. D. (2000a). Applying the concept of psychopathy to children:
Implications for the assessment of antisocial youth. In C. B. Gacono (Ed.), The clinical and forensic
assessment of psychopathy: A practitioner’s guide (pp. 3–24). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Frick, P. J., Bodin, S. D., & Barry, C. T. (2000b). Psychopathic traits and conduct problems in
community and clinic-referred samples of children: Further development of the Psychopathy Screening
Device. Psychological Assessment, 12, 382–393.
Frick, P. J., & Hare, R. D. (2001). The Antisocial Process Screening Device. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health
Systems.
Frick, P. J., Lilienfeld, S. O., Ellis, M., Loney, B., & Silverthorn, P. (1999). The association between
anxiety and psychopathy dimensions in children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27, 383–392.
Frick, P. J., O’Brien, B. S., Wootton, J. M., & McBurnett, K. (1994). Psychopathy and conduct problems
in children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 700–707.
Gretton, H. M., McBride, M., Hare, R. D., O’Shaughnessy, R., & Kumka, G. (2001). Psychopathy and
recidivism in adolescent sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 427–449.
Hare, R. D. (1985). Comparison of procedures for the assessment of psychopathy. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 53, 7–16.
Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Revised. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. D. (1993). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us. New York: Pocket
Books.
Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 23, 25–54.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law 21: 771–786 (2003)
786 Z. Lee et al.

Hare, R. D., Cooke, D. J., & Hart, S. D. (1999). Psychopathy and sadistic personality disorder. In
T. Millon, P. H. Blaney, & R. D. Davis (Eds.), Oxford textbook of psychopathology (pp. 555–584). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Hare, R. D., Forth, A. E., & Strachan, K. E. (1992). Psychopathy and crime across the life span. In R. D.
V. Peters, R. J. McMahon, & V. L. Quinsey (Eds.), Aggression and violence throughout the life span
(pp. 285–300). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Harpur, T. J., Hare, R. D., & Hakstian, A. R. (1989). Two-factor conceptualization of psychopathy:
Construct validity and assessment implications. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 1, 6–17.
Hart, S. D., Hare, R. D., & Forth, A. E. (1994). Psychopathy as a risk marker for violence: Development
and validation of a screening version of the revised Psychopathy Checklist. In J. Monahan & H. J.
Steadman (Eds.), Violence and mental disorder: Developments in risk assessment (pp. 81–98). Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Hart, S. D., Hare, R. D., & Harpur, T. J. (1992). The Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (PCL-R): An
overview for researchers and clinicians. In J. C. Rosen, & P. McReynolds (Eds.), Advances in
psychological assessment ( Vol. 8, pp. 103–130). New York: Plenum.
Hart, S. D., Kropp, P. R., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Performance of male psychopaths following conditional
release from prison. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 227–232.
Hart, S. D., Watt, K. A., & Vincent, G. M. (2002). Commentary on Seagrave and Grisso: Impressions of
the state of the art. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 241–245.
Hattie, J. (1985). Methodology review: Assessing unidimensionality of tests and items. Applied Psycho-
logical Measurement, 9, 139–164.
Hemphill, J. F., Hare, R. D., & Wong, S. (1998). Psychopathy and recidivism: A review. Legal and
Criminological Psychology, 3, 139–170.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Kosson, D. S., Cyterski, T. D., Steuerwald, B. L., Neumann, C. S., & Walker-Matthews, S. (2002). The
reliability and validity of the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV) in nonincarcerated
adolescent males. Psychological Assessment, 14, 97–109.
Kruh, I. P., Frick, P. J., & Clements, C. B. (in press). Historical and personality correlates to the violence
patterns of juveniles tried as adults. Criminal Justice and Behavior.
Lynam, D. R. (2002). Fledgling psychopathy: A view from personality theory. Law and Human Behavior,
26, 255–259.
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Murrie, D. C., & Cornell, D. G. (2002). Psychopathy screening of incarcerated juveniles: A comparison
of measures. Psychological Assessment, 14, 390–396.
Myers, W. C., Burket, R. C., & Harris, H. E. (1995). Adolescent psychopathy in relation to delinquent
behaviors, conduct disorder, and personality disorders. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 40, 435–439.
Ogloff, J., Wong, S., & Greenwood, A. (1990). Treating criminal psychopaths in a therapeutic
community program. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 8, 181–190.
Pardini, D. A., Lochman, J. E., & Frick, P. J. (2003). Callous/unemotional traits and social cognitive
processes in adjudicated youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42,
364–371.
Poythress, N. G., Edens, J. F., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (1998). Criterion-related validity of the Psychopathic
Personality Inventory in a prison sample. Psychological Assessment, 10, 426–430.
Rice, M. E., Harris, G. T., & Cormier, C. A. (1992). An evaluation of a maximum security therapeutic
community for psychopaths and other mentally disordered offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 16,
399–412.
Seagrave, D., & Grisso, T. (2002). Adolescent development and the measurement of juvenile psycho-
pathy. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 219–239.
Seto, M. C., & Barbaree, H. E. (1999). Psychopathy, treatment behavior, and sex offender recidivism.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 1235–1248.
Toupin, J., Mercier, H., Déry, M., Côté, G., & Hodgins, S. (1995). Validity of the PCL-R for
adolescents. Issues in Criminological and Legal Psychology, 24, 143–145.
Vincent, G. M., & Hart, S. D. (2002). Psychopathy in childhood and adolescence: Implications for the
assessment and management of multi-problem youths. In R. R. Corrado, R. Roesch, S. D. Hart, & J. K.
Gierowski (Eds.), Multi-problem violent youth: A foundation for comparative research on needs, interventions
and outcomes (pp. 150–163). Burke, VA: IOS Press.
Vitacco, M. J., Rogers, R., & Neumann, C. S. (2003). The Antisocial Process Screening Device: An
examination of its construct and criterion-related validity. Assessment, 10, 143–150.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law 21: 771–786 (2003)