Current Psychology (2022) 41:2457–2468

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00765-6

Factor structure and psychometric properties of the Italian version

of the Hare psychopathy checklist-youth version (PCL:YV) in a sample
of adolescents with criminal convictions
Ugo Sabatello 1 & Laura D’Antuono 2 & Paolo Iliceto 3 & Simona Stefanile 4,5 & Fiorenzo Laghi 6

Published online: 30 April 2020

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
This study aimed to confirm the factor structure of the Italian version of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version
(PCL:YV) in a sample of adolescents with criminal convictions. The sample was comprised of 116 adolescent boys aged 12–
18 years. In addition to PCL:YV, the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and the MMPI-A were used.
Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed; the final solution was a four-factors model with correlated latent factors.
The internal consistency of each factor was acceptably high. Moreover, as expected, positive and high correlations with SAVRY
scores, and a negative association with the SAVRY protective indicator, were found. The factor structure of the Italian PCL:YV
specifically tested in this study with adolescents with criminal convictions, has confirmed that the Italian PCL:YV can be a
suitable tool for the assessment of psychopathy dimensions among adolescents with criminal convictions in Italy.

Keywords Adolescent forensic sample . Adolescent violence risk . Juvenile psychopathy assessment . Detention / probation /
clinical settings

Introduction proneness to boredom, and lack of realistic long-term goals,

Psychopathy can be defined as a higher-order construct which
emphasizes deficits in affective and interpersonal functioning,
while conduct disorder and antisocial personality disorder pri-
marily focus on behavioral problems (Hare 1998; Hare et al.
1991; Vitacco and Kosson 2010). Psychopathy is a severe
syndrome of personality pathology characterized by a system
of interpersonal, affective and behavioral characteristics, as
grandiose sense of self-worth, conning/manipulative, shallow
affect, lack of remorse, antisocial behavior, impulsivity,
* Fiorenzo Laghi
fiorenzo.laghi@uniroma1.it
1
Department of Pediatrics and Child Neuropsychiatry, Sapienza
University of Rome, Rome, Italy
2
Independent Researcher, Bruxelles, Belgium
3
S&P Statistics and Psychometrics Ltd, Rome, Italy
4
Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome,
Rome, Italy
5
Present address: Private Clinical Practice, Rome, Italy
6
Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, Sapienza
University of Rome, via dei Marsi 78, 00185 Rome, Italy
widely associated also with callous and unemotional features
reported into Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM-5) as markers of severe conduct disorder
(APA 2013), which can be associated with serious aggressive
and violent behavior (Frick et al. 2014).
The application of the concept of psychopathy (down-
ward extension of Adult Psychopathy) to children and ad-
olescents (Vitacco and Vincent 2006; Skeem and Cauffman
2003; Lynam and Gudonis 2005) has stimulated debate in
the literature. Some clinicians and researchers highlight the
risks of a stigmatizing diagnostic label in the developmental
phase, as it assumes chronicity and resistance to treatment.
Also, an overestimation of externalizing behaviours (such
as impulsiveness and sensation seeking) which appear
mostly phase-specific, could be part of this approach.
Seagrave and Grisso (2002) suggest that as adolescence is
a considerable developmental change period, the psychop-
athy has a high false-positive rate in such subjects, therefore
caution is important when long-term decisions related to the
management of juvenile lawbreakers in forensics settings
are made on the basis of tools assessing psychopathy (see
also Edens et al. 2001; Hart et al. 2002). Conversely other
researchers, based on longitudinal studies, found that the
psychopath trait is relatively stable from adolescence into
2458
adulthood (Frick 2002; Lynam et al. 2009; Salekin and
Frick 2005; Salekin et al. 2005, 2008).
However, research on both adult and adolescent psychop-
athy, currently shows different challenges for researchers, cli-
nicians and the whole penal system, especially when aiming at
rehabilitation (vs. punishment). The main challenges are the
followings: 1) it is hard to estimate the prevalence of the dis-
order in general population, when using self-report tools for its
assessment (see Werner et al. 2015), with the consequent risk
of underestimating the symptoms; 2) the studies’ samples are
pre-selected, mostly composed of subjects who have been in
contact with the penal system and are often serving prison
sentences. Particularly for adolescents, research is carried
out on samples defined as “high risk” for delinquency
(Leenarts et al. 2017; Frick et al. 2003a). Since the term “at-
risk” (Frick et al. 2003a) could have a prejudicial meaning for
children and juveniles, as they may not exhibit problematic
behavior later in life, prospective studies are needed to verify
the stability of the traits vs. their change over time.
Also, it is crucial to understand whether the psychopathic
traits belong only to a subgroup (those exhibiting more anti-
social behaviours, both violent and non-violent), or it is pos-
sible to distinguish - according to the characteristics of the
high/low callous–unemotional personality traits - subgroups
with different degrees of dangerousness and whether this as-
sessment can be applied to forensic and non-forensic samples
(Leenarts et al. 2017; Frick et al. 2003a). A few researches
have indeed used non-forensic study samples (community
samples, household population), or mixed samples (forensic
and non-forensic) (see Coid et al. 2009; Leenarts et al. 2017)
also because the scoring of assessment tools such as the PCL,
are affected by the subjects criminal record and not only by
their psychiatric history.
Another promising research area is to differentiate the
types of lawbreakers based on the criminal offense commit-
ted (general offense / violent offense / sexual offense), partly
neglected in the literature, and the risk of recidivism (see
Barroso et al. 2020; Gretton et al. 2001; Parks and Bard
2006). This would help not only to refine our knowledge of
psychopathy but also to identify the different risk profiles
among lawbreakers.
In adult literature it has been noted that the interpersonal/
affective items (as Manipulation for Personal Gain) are more
stable than the behavioural items (as Impulsivity), then the
conceptualization of psychopathy should focus more on affec-
tive and callous-unemotional traits -as lack of guilt and empa-
thy or poverty in emotional expression- providing important
information about a subgroup of antisocial youth at early on-
set, at increased risk for future violent and aggressive behav-
iour, with poor response to treatment, and maintenance of
conduct disorder along the transition towards adulthood, an
antisocial life-course persistent (Frick and Dickens 2006;
Frick et al. 2003b; Lynam et al. 2008).
Curr Psychol (2022) 41:2457–2468
Many authors indicate that recidivism is predicted by ado-
lescent psychopathy, on the basis of the relation between psy-
chopathy and subsequent offending among juvenile law-
breakers (Edens and Campbell 2007; Edens et al. 2007;
Skeem and Cauffman 2003). In a 10-year retrospective study
Gretton and colleagues reported that juveniles who scored
high (30 or above) on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist:
Youth Version (PCL:YV) were 3 times more likely to violently
offend than those who scored lower (Gretton et al. 2004), and
that adolescents who score higher on measures of psychopa-
thy have also been associated with institutional violence
(Spain et al. 2004).
Many studies conducted with adolescent samples con-
firmed that psychopathy predicts future institutional and
post-discharge violence in adults, and it is associated with
both the frequency of violent recidivism and a shorter period
to violent recidivism (Brandt et al. 1997), while studies con-
ducted to survey institutional violence suggest moderate cor-
relations between psychopathy and verbal and physical ag-
gression (Edens et al. 2007). In order to understand the devel-
opmental processes that lead to severe forms of personality
disorders, and to carry out preventive interventions, an effec-
tive assessment procedure of the potential childhood precur-
sors of psychopathy is necessary. (Frick and White 2008; Hare
2016; Lynam and Vachon 2012). Furthermore, for adoles-
cents, it is useful to include the assessment of comorbidity of
psychopathy not only with classic behavioural disorders
(oppositional-defiant disorder, conduct disorder) but also with
other measures related to internalizing psychopathology (see
Salekin et al. 2004). Gender and ethnic differences should be
studied more in relation to the association between psycho-
pathic traits and criminal behaviour to understand their possi-
ble modulation effects (Geerlings et al. 2020).
The Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV)
(Forth et al. 2003) is a 20-item rating scale that has been
developed and validated for the assessment of psychopathic
traits in adolescents, both boys and girls, aged 12 to 18 years.
The instrument was adapted from the Hare Psychopathy
Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) (Hare 1991, 2003), i.e. the most
widely used measure of psychopathy in adults. The PCL:YV,
using a semi-structured interview and collateral information,
measures interpersonal, affective, and behavioral features re-
lated to a widely understood concept of psychopathy. The
PCL:YV yields dimensional scores, and can be used to classi-
fy individuals into groups for research or clinical purposes
(Neumann et al. 2007).
The PCL:YV validity has been verified in several studies
(Das et al. 2009; Kosson et al. 2002). In particular, the evalu-
ation of the concurrent validity of the PCL:YV has been stud-
ied with respect to Conduct Disorder (CD), because this con-
struct, the antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy are
often considered as developmental disorders characterized by
moderate trait stability from childhood to adulthood
Curr Psychol (2022) 41:2457–2468 2459

(Campbell et al. 2004; Dadds et al. 2005; Frick et al. 1994; placement in the custody of the Social Services -own home or
Lee et al. 2010; Loeber et al. 2001; Shepherd and Strand 2015; group home), and 4.3% were within a psychiatric facility.
Talkington et al. 2013). Overall, 116 PCL:YV protocols, 85 SAVRY protocols, and
The debate on the most appropriate factor structure of the 17 MMPI-A protocols were used for the analyses. Based on
PCL:YV is however still open (Kosson et al. 2013). The early the nature of the criminal offenses committed by the subjects,
literature suggested that psychopathy is a bi-dimensional phe- they were grouped in Juvenile Sex Offenders (both violent
nomenon with a two-factor structure, an interpersonal/ and non violent; n = 48) and Juvenile Violent Non Sex
affective component and a social deviance component (Hare Offenders (n = 68). Criminal offenses are detailed in Table 1.
et al. 1990), while later Cooke and Michie (2001) have pro-
posed a three-factor structure, including three components:
arrogant deceitful interpersonal style, defective emotional ex- Measures
perience, and behavioural problems. Other studies have hy-
pothesized that the construct is comprised of four factors char- The Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV) (Forth,
acterized by deficits in the following areas: interpersonal, af- Kosson, & Hare; Italian version by Sabatello et al. 2012) is a
fective, behavioural, and antisocial (Parker et al. 2003). multi-item rating scale that assesses 20 interpersonal and af-
Currently there is empirical evidence supporting both the fective characteristics as well as behavioral dispositions asso-
three-factor and four-factor models of adult psychopathy ciated with psychopathy. Scores of 0 (consistently absent), 1
(Cooke et al. 2006; Hare and Neumann 2006; Neumann (inconsistent), or 2 (consistently present) for each component
et al. 2005; Salekin et al. 2006). of psychopathy reflect inferences about the consistency of the
However, a broader criticism on psychopathy construct specific tendency or disposition across situations. The mea-
measured via PCL-R and related measures has been recently sure is designed to be completed by trained observers who rate
reported in a review by Boduszek and Debowska (2016), who the presence of each trait disposition on the basis of a semi-
suggested to interpret with caution prior results. According to
Table 1 Characteristics of the criminal offenses
their review, the formulation of psychopathy as grasped by the
PCL-R is more heavily weighted towards indicators of behav- Juvenile sex offenders f f%
ioural expressions of the disorder (e.g. deviancy and Rape/Sexual abuse group 13 27.1
maladjustment). Sexual acts in public places 2 4.2
Following the successful validation of the PCL:YV in the Groping 1 2.1
Italian context (Sabatello et al. 2012), the purpose of this study Sexual acts with minors 1 2.1
was to confirm the factor structure of the Italian PCL:YV in a Missing data 31 64.5
sample of adolescent boys with criminal convictions,
highlighting the reliability and concurrent validity of the in- Juvenile violent non sex offenders f f%
strument, strengthen cross-cultural utilization of the instru- Theft 8 11.8
ment, and make further cross-cultural comparisons possible. Brawl 1 1.5
Insult to a public official 2 2.9
Contempt 1 1.5
Method Injuries 2 2.9
Aggression 8 11.8
Participants Attempted murder 3 4.4
Robbery 3 4.4
A total of 133 adolescent participants were recruited. They Murder 2 2.9
were adolescent boys with criminal convictions. Some miss- Receiving stolen goods 2 2.9
ing data for 17 participants led to their exclusion from the Drug possession 1 1.5
analyses; therefore, the final sample included 116 participants Rocks from the overpass 1 1.5
aged 12–18 years (M = 15.78, SD = 1.60). For the PCL:YV, Drug dealing 2 2.9
records regarding subjects who were not contacted in person Mugging 1 1.5
were used. For 46 subjects (39.6%) the interviews plus records Conduct disorder / assault 5 7.3
were used, while for 70 subjects (60.4%) records only were Behavioral disorder / assault 1 1.5
used. The legal conditions of the subjects were as follows: the Antisocial disorder / assault 1 1.5
majority of subjects (40.5%) were awaiting trial (at home), Aiding and abetting 1 1.5
while more than 10% were within penal institutions, 31.9% Assault of the mother 1 1.5
were allocated to alternative measures of punishment (i.e., Missing data 22 32.3
parole, semi-liberty), 12.9% were in probation (i.e., probation
2460
structured interview and a review of case history information
or other sources. Factor analytic studies yielded a four-factors
solution with following latent factors: Interpersonal,
Affective, Lifestyle, and Antisocial.
The Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth
(SAVRY) (Borum et al. 2006) is a risk assessment tool based
on the structured professional judgment model and focused on
risk factors relevant to adolescents. The SAVRY includes 24
risk items, divided into three domains (historical, social/
contextual and individual) and a protective domain with 6
items. The risk items have a three-level coding structure
(low, moderate, and high) and the protective items have a
two-level structure (absent or present).
The Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory – Adolescent
(MMPI-A) (Butcher, Williams, Graham, Archer, Tellegen,
Ben-Porath, & Kaemmer. Italian version by Sirigatti and
Pancheri 2005), is a questionnaire used to evaluate personality
and emotional problems in adolescents aged 14–18 years.
Procedure
Over a 6-year period we collected data from different treatment
centers in 3 Italian regions (i.e., Lazio, Emilia Romagna and
Calabria) which collaborate with the Government Department
of Juvenile Justice, and from the records of different Justice
Courts (N = 49: 42%). Other data were drawn from subjects
who were inpatients at the Child Neuropsychiatry Department
of Sapienza University of Rome. These authors of criminal
offenses, for comorbidities were admitted to the psychiatric
specialist unit for adolescents (N = 67: 58%). Written informed
consent from the subjects, or their parents, or their legal guard-
ians was obtained. The study protocol received ethical approv-
al from the institution research ethics committee.
For the PCL:YV, the file reviews included information
from different sources (e.g., police, parents, etc.), and different
contexts of the youth’s life (e.g., home, school, institution,
etc.). For 49 subjects (42%), the files used were legal technical
reports from treatment centers and Justice Courts, while for 67
cases (58%) of the Child Neuropsychiatry Department, the
files used were clinical records.
The legal technical reports are reports compiled according to
national guidelines by different professionals (i.e., licensed
child psychiatrists / psychiatrists / psychologists). They have
one-to-one meetings with the minor, in order to examine the
subject’s personality (through interviews and tests), run inter-
views with parents or legal guardians where present, and collect
records from Social Services, medical records, and information
from other sources (e.g. school records). Regarding documents
collected from prison records, they included the medical re-
cords, the reports from the USSM (Social Services Office for
underage subjects), and in some cases, psychiatric reports.
The clinical records were somewhat similar in content to
the legal technical reports, as the inpatients had been sent to
Curr Psychol (2022) 41:2457–2468
the Child Neuropsychiatry Department from the Justice
Courts, and a procedure similar to the legal technical report
compilation had been applied: interviews with parents and
social services, tests administrations, etc.
The file’s length, content, and completeness for each sub-
ject were however heterogeneous, with some files having de-
tailed and elaborate information, others insufficient informa-
tion (as parents may have died or were in prison, the subjects
were unaccompanied foreign minors, etc.). Therefore they
were excluded.
The trained observers were 2 licensed psychologists with a
specific 48-h training on administering and scoring the
PCL:YV. They assessed independently the PCL:YV inter-
views of 46 subjects.
For the SAVRY, data analyses included only subjects with
complete data, i.e. data from 85 subjects.
For the MMPI-A, we experienced a general low compli-
ance of the minors during the test administration, along with
other specific difficulties: foreigner subjects could not fully
understand the Italian language, subjects with ADHD or learn-
ing disabilities and subjects under sedation can not complete
the test. Consequently, only data from 17 subjects could be
analyzed.
Statistical Analyses
We calculated descriptive statistics as means, standard devia-
tion, skewness, kurtosis, Pearson’s r correlation coefficients,
non-parametric Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients,
t-test for independent samples, and K coefficient.
Furthermore, reliability analyses to assess the internal consis-
tency were performed with CR (composite reliability). For
computing Explorative Factor Analysis (EFA), principal axis
factoring (PAF) with Promax rotation was utilized, starting
from the conceptual consideration that the underlying factors
may be correlated. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to
cross validate the factor structures derived from the EFA
(Bollen 1989).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) allows for a test of
specific hypotheses concerning the relation between observed
variables and their underlying latent constructs (Brown 2006).
We used the following criteria to evaluate the overall goodness
of fit. The χ2 value close to zero indicates a small difference
between expected vs. observed covariance matrices, with the
probability level > .05, which shows the absence of meaning-
ful unexplained variance. Moreover, to estimate a better good-
ness of fit, due to the fact that χ2 is sensitive to sample size, we
calculated the ratio of χ2 to degrees of freedom, expected to be
less than 3 to accept the data-model fit. In addition we utilized
the Comparative Fit Index >.95 (CFI; Bentler 1990), to com-
pare the fit of a model of interest to the fit of the baseline
model, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation <.06
(RMSEA; Steiger 1990), as measure of approximate fit in the
Curr Psychol (2022) 41:2457–2468
population, and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
<.08 (SRMR; Jöreskog and Sörbom 1996), as indication of
the extent of error resulting from the estimation of the speci-
fied model (Browne and Cudeck 1993; Hu and Bentler 1998,
1999). CFA was carried out using LISREL 8.30 (SSI Inc.,
Skokie, IL, USA), while all other analyses were carried out
using SPSS 20.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
Results
Factorial Structure, Internal Consistency,
and Concurrent Validity
For the PCL:YV interviews, the inter-rater agreement was
computed by using Kappa coefficient, reaching a satisfactory
outcome: Coefficient = .79; Standard error = .14.
Disagreements were solved by joint re-examination of the data
and consensus coding.
The distributions of the response percentages for all
PCL:YV items were quite heterogeneous; “Poor Anger
Control” and “Impulsivity” showed the highest rates
(38.8%), while a less lower rate (35%) was obtained for
“Failure to Accept Responsibility”; other items obtained more
than 20%, (e.g. “Lacks Goals” (28.4%), “Stimulation
Seeking” (25.8%), “Shallow Affect” (25.0%), “Lack of
Remorse/Guilt” (24.2%), and “Callous/Lack of Empathy
(22.4%)). “Irresponsibility” (19%), “Impersonal Sexual
Behavior” (12.1%), and “Early Problem Behavior” (12.1%)
obtained more than 10%. This group of items represented the
more frequent behaviours in the Italian sample of the present
study.
Descriptive statistics of the items of PCL:YV are listed in
Table 2; we examined the data univariate normality, which is
ensured when both values of skewness and kurtosis are close
to zero, and within −2 and + 2 range (Bachman 2004). The
majority of the values for almost all the items were below
these cut-offs, with the exception of “Serious Violation of
Conditional Release” and “Criminal Versatility” which
exceeded significantly the conventional criterion. This fact is
due to the substantive absence of these behaviours in our
sample, respectively 88.8% and 82.7% of “No” that we found
in the protocols. Moreover, unfortunately in literature there is
not agreement on the presence of evident non-normality of the
distribution; in fact, many authors consider skewness and kur-
tosis values close to 2 and 7, respectively, as moderately non-
normal (Muthén and Kaplan 1985; Chou and Bentler 1995;
Curran et al. 1996), while Kline (2011), after reviewing rele-
vant studies, suggested values of skewness and kurtosis ex-
ceeding 3 and 20, respectively, as extremely non-normal.
However, the results that were found in the present study did
not affect the total scores, so the shape of the distribution can
be considered normal.
2461
Factorial Structure Explorative Factor Analysis (EFA) was
utilized to verify the underlying structure of the original ver-
sion of the test already established on the basis of theoretical
foundations and empirical analyses, and factor analysis using
principal axis factoring with Promax rotation was applied to
the correlation matrix and we extracted a four-factor solution
that accounted for 56% of variance. All 20 items had commu-
nalities, the proportion of variance accounted by the common
factors, greater than .30, and factor loadings greater than .55
on the appropriate factors, with the exception of the item
“Serious Violation of Conditional Release” and the item
“Parasitic Orientation”, that had anyway satisfactory loadings
of .31 and .32 respectively. The Factor I (Antisocial)
accounted for 26.06% of the variance (eigenvalue = 5.21),
factor II (Interpersonal) accounted for 11.40% (eigenvalue =
2.28), factor III (Lifestyle) for 9.22% (eigenvalue = 1.98), fac-
tor IV (Affective) for 8.57% (eigenvalue = 1.72). Factor load-
ings and communalities are shown in Table 3.
Before applying Confirmatory Factor Analysis with the
Maximum Likelihood Estimation, we examined the assump-
tion regarding the multivariate normality. For this purpose we
calculated Mardia’s coefficient (1970) which resulted as
412.19 < 20(20 + 2) = 440; according to Bollen (1989), when
Mardia’s coefficient is less than v(v + 2), where v is the num-
ber of observed variables, there is multivariate normality.
Moreover, using the χ2 distribution we examined also the
distance of each case from the centroid of the means of all
the variables analysed, the Mahalanobis distance, and we did
not find multivariate outliers as unusual combination of scores
on two or more variables (Tabachnick and Fidell 2007).
We applied CFA to verify the structure of the Italian vali-
dation of the PCL:YV, for testing whether the loadings of the
twenty observed variables on the latent factors, would con-
form to what expected on the basis of the underlying theoret-
ical model (Martens 2005). We used the covariance matrix
and the maximum likelihood method to estimate three CFA
models. The first model represented the three-factor model
from Cooke and Michie (2001). This model produced satisfy-
ing fit indices as follows: χ 2 /df = 1.27; CFI = .95;
RMSEA = .00, but with only 13 out of the 20 variables of
the PCL:YV. The second model represented a four-factor
model with 18 out of the 20 variables of the PCL:YV, exclud-
ing “Impersonal Sexual Behavior” and “Unstable
Interpersonal Relationships” (Hare 2003; Parker et al. 2003),
and produced the following fit indices:χ2/df = 1.46; CFI = .93;
RMSEA = .08. They were slightly outside the accepted
values, then the hypothesis that this model is a good fit to
the data was rejected. The third model represented a four-
factor model with latent factors correlated, in which all the
20 variables were predicted to load onto the four factors de-
rived from the EFA in the validation sample (Sabatello et al.
2012). Given that this model fit was not completely adequate,
we referred to modification indices (MI) provided by Lisrel to
2462 Curr Psychol (2022) 41:2457–2468

Table 2 Descriptive statistics of Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Youth Version (PCL:YV) items

Items Means SD No (%) Maybe (%) Yes (%)

Impression management .42 .62 65.5 27.4 7.1

Grandiose sense of self worth .42 .63 65.5 26.5 8
Stimulation seeking .79 .86 49.6 22.1 28.3
Pathological lying .25 .49 77.9 19.4 2.7
Manipulation for personal gain .41 .66 69 21.3 9.7
Lack of remorse/guilt 1.04 .63 17.7 60.2 22.1
Shallow affect 1.02 .71 24.8 48.7 26.5
Callous/lack of empathy .94 .69 27.4 51.3 21.3
Parasitic orientation .23 .46 78.8 19.5 1.7
Poor anger control 1.00 .90 40.7 18.6 40.7
Impersonal sexual behavior .46 .68 64.6 24.8 10.6
Early problem behavior .50 .69 61.1 27.4 11.5
Lacks goals .98 .74 28.3 45.2 26.5
Impulsivity 1.05 .86 34.5 25.7 39.8
Irresponsibility .79 .74 40.7 39.8 19.5
Failure to accept responsibility 1.04 .73 24.8 46 29.2
Unstable interpersonal relationships .66 .71 47.7 38.1 14.2
Serious criminal behavior .87 .62 26.5 60.2 13.3
Serious violation of conditional release .12 .39 91.1 6.2 2.7
Criminal versatility .21 .50 83.2 12.4 4.4

improve the model; then we considered to set the estimation of
the errors of covariance, i.e. when two indicators co-vary for
other reasons than the shared influence of the latent factor,
because they have something specific in common, decreasing
the χ2 value to reach possibly p > .05 (Byrne 2010). We set
“Irresponsibility” with, respectively, “Parasitic Orientation”,
“Lacks Goals”, and “Serious Criminal Behavior”; “Parasitic
Orientation” with “Lacks Goals”, and “Serious Criminal
Behavior” with “Criminal Versatility”. These modifications
resulted in a more appropriate model to describe the relation-
ships between the observed variables and the latent factors,
which was highly satisfactory, fitting the data as follows: χ2/
df = .83; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = .00. All fitted indices are re-
ported in Table 4.
The inspection of model parameters (Fig. 1), indicated that
all the items loaded on the hypothesized factor, and the stan-
dardized factor loadings, shown on each arrow -that represent
the strength of the relation between the observed variables and
the latent factors (Schumacker and Lomax 2004)- were high
and statistically significant, ranging from .37 (“Failure to
Accept Responsibility”) to .69 (“Impulsivity”).
Moreover, the correlation between “Interpersonal” and
“Lifestyle” (r = .28), “Interpersonal” and “Affective”
(r = .41), and “Affective and Lifestyle” (r = .43) were low
but significant, while the other correlations were moderate
and all statistically significant: “Interpersonal”, “Affective”
and “Antisocial”, respectively (r = .49; r = .51), “Antisocial”
and “Lifestyle” (r = .55). Thus, we concluded that the four-
factor model with correlated factors, provided a good fit to the
empirical data, supporting the robustness of the construct well
measured by all the items.
Internal Consistency As reported in the Italian validation of
the PCL:YV, (Sabatello et al. 2012), the four scales (i.e.,
Interpersonal, Affective, Lifestyle, and Antisocial) were
scored by adding up the score of the items endorsed on each
component, and the PCL:YV total score was composed by the
sum of the scale scores. The internal consistency (composite
reliability) of each factor was acceptably high: “Antisocial”
(CR = .744), “Interpersonal” (CR = .702), “Lifestyle”
(CR = .713), “Affective” (CR = .700), and PCL:YV total
score (CR = .909).
Concurrent Validity Concurrent validity was evaluated using
Pearson’s r correlation coefficients between the SAVRY and
the PCL:YV. A positive statistical significant association be-
tween the PCL:YV total score and the three domains of the
SAVRY, i.e. Historical (r = .650), Social/contextual (r = .562),
Individual (r = .747), and the total score (r = .741) was found,
while, as expected, a negative correlation with the Protective
indicator (r = −.633) was found.
Furthermore, we assessed the associations between the
psychopathological personality dimensions as measured by
the MMPI-A and the measure of psychopathy as measured
Curr Psychol (2022) 41:2457–2468
by the PCL:YV. We used non-parametric Spearman Rank-
Order correlations because there were few MMPI-A protocols
(n = 17), and the results revealed statistical significant positive
correlations between PCL:YV total score and Depression
(r = .508), Psychopathic Deviate (r = .514), Paranoia
(r = .596), Psychasthenia (r = .658), Schizophrenia (r = .544),
Hypomania (r = .714), Anxiety (r = .624), Obsessiveness
(r = .643), Alienation (r = .612), Anger (r = .571), Cynicism
(r = .674), Conduct problems (r = .566), Low Self-Esteem
(r = .810), Low Aspiration (r = .768), Family Problems
(r = .691), Negative Treatment Indicators (r = .749), Alcohol/
Drug Problem Proneness (r = .545), and Immaturity
(r = .698).
Regarding the differences between Juvenile Sex-Offenders
and Juvenile Non Sex-Offenders, the result of the MANOVA
considering as dependent variables the dimensions of
PCL:YV was statistically significant (Wilks’ Lambda = .73;
F = 7.88; p < .001). The univariate ANOVA showed signifi-
cant differences for Lifestyle, F = 25.97, p < .001, ηp2 = .19,
Antisocial, F = 15.53, p < .001, η p 2 = .12, and for the
PCL:YV total score, F = 17.57, p < .001, ηp2 = .14, where
Juvenile Non Sex-Offenders (respectively: M = 4.78, SD =
2.45; M = 3.30, SD = 1.80; M = 15.17, SD = 6.41) obtained
higher scores than Juvenile Sex-Offenders
(respectively: M = 2.38, SD = 2.47, M = 1.70, SD = 1.90;
M = 10.38, SD = 6.78).
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to confirm the factor
structure of the Italian PCL:YV in a sample of adolescent
boys with criminal convictions.
The results largely confirmed the anticipated four-factor
structure of the PCL:YV. Confirmatory Factor Analysis was
used to test the three-factor model from Cooke and Michie
(2001), which provided a good fit to the data but only with
13 items (Neumann et al. 2006); then the four-factor model
with 18 of the 20 variables of the PCL:YV (Salekin et al.
2006) did not produce a good fit to the data and this hypoth-
esis was rejected. The third model represented a modified
four-factor model with latent factors correlated, in which all
the variables were predicted to load onto the four factors de-
rived from the Italian validation, and this model provided a
good fit to the data. The four-dimensional model hypothesized
and tested in our study has been confirmed, and produced
adequate fit indices, revealing appropriate to describe the as-
sociation between the observed variables and the latent fac-
tors, and good fit to the data. Our results differ from those
obtained in the Dutch and in the Portuguese validations of
the PCL:YV (Hillege et al. 2011; Pechorro et al. 2014). In
those studies, for assessing psychopathy, the antisocial factor
was not the best factor model, while primarily the affective
2463
factor, and then the interpersonal and lifestyle components,
were relevant. Instead, the results found in the Spanish version
of the PCL:YV (Villar-Torres et al. 2014), appear consistent
with those of the Italian sample.
However, as reported by Boduszek and Debowska (2016),
one of the main reasons for inconsistent findings across stud-
ies may be the failure to compare a number of alternative
models. Given the inconsistencies among the PCL-R factor
analytic literature, the authors provided a set of recommenda-
tions which would systemize future research. In addition,
some differences in data collection, −e.g. the current study
mainly used previous records vs. interviews for the
PCL:YV- could explain the different results across the studies.
The internal consistency of each factor was acceptably
high: Antisocial, Interpersonal, Lifestyle, Affective, and
PCL:YV total score. Despite some significant low correlations
between the Interpersonal factor with Lifestyle factor as well
as with Affective factor, the correlation between the other
dimensions were significant moderate, suggesting that they
measure different indicators of PCL:YV.
Regarding the concurrent validity of the scale, as expected,
we found positive and high correlations with SAVRY scores, a
negative association with the SAVRY Protective indicator
(Dolan and Rennie 2008; Hempel et al. 2013; Hilterman
et al. 2014), and positive correlations with different MMPI-
A scales. Some of them (i.e., those with Low Self-Esteem or
Anxiety) were less expected (Lilienfeld and Fowler 2006;
Sellbom et al. 2007). However, it can be noted that 4
patterns of personality deviations have been reported among
psychopathic disorder subjects and in general among mentally
disordered offenders: 1-Primary Psychopaths / 2-Secondary
Psychopaths / 3-Controled / 4-Inihbited. (Blackburn 1998).
Consistently with our data, the profiles 2 and 4 are low in
self-esteem and anxious. In addition, the predicted correla-
tions between psychopathy and self-esteem were not support-
ed either by the findings of a targeted study by Valentine
(2001).
Our results showed also that Juvenile Violent Non Sex
Offenders obtained significantly higher scores than Juvenile
Sex Offenders in the PCL:YV. This finding is compatible with
the results of a meta-analysis conducted by Seto and
Lalumiere (2010) on 59 independent studies comparing male
adolescent sex offenders with adolescent non-sex offenders.
The meta-analysis has showed that adolescent sex offenders
had much less extensive criminal histories, fewer antisocial
peers, and fewer substance use problems compared with
non-sex offenders.
Several previous studies highlighted deficits in affective
and interpersonal functioning, and their links with antisocial
personality and/or behavioural problems, for a better under-
standing of the developmental processes that may lead to per-
sonality disorders as potential predictors of psychopathy and
criminal behaviour among adolescents (Lynam et al. 2002),
2464 Curr Psychol (2022) 41:2457–2468

Table 3 Factor loadings, communalities, and Cumulative Reliability (Promax rotation), (In bold factor loadings >.30)

Item Antisocial Interpersonal Lifestyle Affective Communalities

Stimulation seeking .828 .256 .324 .197 .697

Serious criminal behavior .707 .268 .050 .202 .545
Lacks goals .702 .183 .322 .313 .508
Irresponsibility .681 .181 .386 .274 .493
Criminal versatility .611 .286 .228 .195 .385
Impersonal sexual behavior .562 .087 .173 .185 .323
Serious violation of conditional release .312 .262 .030 .102 .137
Impression management .101 .864 .092 .087 .777
Manipulation for personal gain .387 .834 .139 .200 .716
Pathological lying .269 .780 .265 .164 .630
Grandiose sense of self worth .292 .725 .063 .219 .542
Parasitic orientation .303 .324 .134 .202 .158
Unstable interpersonal relationships .266 .175 .849 .309 .742
Impulsivity .458 .113 .830 .178 .733
Poor anger control .158 .175 .803 .070 .675
Early problem behavior .270 .063 .755 .185 .575
Lack of remorse/guilt .343 .133 .096 .852 .745
Shallow affect .302 .148 .253 .846 .720
Callous/lack of empathy .364 .254 .247 .721 .547
Failure to accept responsibility .070 .125 .120 .716 .546
% of explained variance 26.06 11.40 9.22 8.57
Cumulative reliability .744 .702 .713 .700 .909

and the relevance of assessing such severe issues by means of
PCL:YV as reliable and valid tool (Dolan and Rennie 2006;
Kosson et al. 2002; Ridenour et al. 2001).
In conclusion, we consider our results as explicative of the
underlying construct; we tested that the Italian version of the
PCL:YV can be a suitable tool for the assessment of psychop-
athy dimensions, and we expect it to further contribute to the
identification of differences among different dimensions of
psychopathy and to a better comprehension of their impact
on the development and maintenance of pathological condi-
tions and behaviours.
Moreover, since only few scales assessing psychopathy in
adolescents have been validated in Italy to date, we consider
promising the associations found with the SAVRY scales: the
Italian validation of this instrument has been recently pub-
lished (Sabatello et al. 2018), thus contributing to strengthen
this kind of studies within the Italian cultural context.
Consistently, as indicated by Neumann et al. (2007), “a fruitful
approach would be to identify item characteristics (item load-
ings, thresholds) from diverse measures that match or compli-
ment the items”, aiming at obtaining “psychometrically sound
measures which precisely represent the construct in a mathe-
matical form that can be easily understood”.
A key limitation of the current study is the small sample
size that was used, even if -limited to goodness of fit- only
parameters that are not sensitive to small sample size were
used. The sample subjects’ recruitment and data collection
have been extremely difficult, given the great specificity of
the population to be investigated in our study; however, our
sample size is comparable to similar studies using the same
sample size (Dolan and Rennie 2006; Kosson et al. 2002). Yet,
this was a preliminary study, on which future studies can build

Table 4 Goodness-of-fit statistics

Models χ2/ p GFI CFI RMSEA
df

Three-factor and 13 items (Cooke and Michie 2001) 1.20 .13 .87 .95 .04
Four-factor and 18 items (Hare 2003; Parker et al. 2003) 1.57 <.001 .84 .79 .07
Four-factor and 20 items (Validation sample) 1.07 .24 .87 .97 .02
Curr Psychol (2022) 41:2457–2468 2465

Fig. 1 Four-factor model for .64 .60

the PCL:YV (Validation i1 i6
sample). The curved arrow
represents the relationship .60 .41
between the latent factors, while .62 .59
straight arrows from latent factors i2 .63
i7
.62
to observed variables represent .64
the factor loadings, Note. i1:
Impression Management; i2: .64 .60 .67 .55
i4 Interpersonal Affective i8
Grandiose Sense of Self Worth;
i3: Stimulation Seeking; i4: .59 .48
Pathological Lying; i5:
.41
Manipulation for Personal Gain; i5 .65 .77
i16
i6: Lack of Remorse/Guilt; i7:
Shallow Affect; i8: Callous/Lack
of Empathy; i9: Parasitic .51
Orientation; i10: Poor Anger i9 .61
i3
Control; i11: Impersonal Sexual .83 .49
Behavior; i12: Early Problem .43
Behavior; i13: Lacks Goals; i14:
Impulsivity; i15: Irresponsibility; .28 .76
i16: Failure to Accept i11
Responsibility; i17: Unstable
Interpersonal Relationships; i18: .73
Serious Criminal Behavior; i19:
i10 .65
Serious Violation of Conditional .62 .49 i13
Release; i20: Criminal Versatility .52
.53 .60
i12 .69
Lifestyle Antisocial
.62
i15
.62 .61
.61 .64 .58
i14
.37 i18
.50 .66
.55
i17 .60
.87 i19

.75 i20

with further research. In addition, the PCL:YV has been al- psychopathic traits in the field of basic and applied research, as
ready validated in the Italian context (adolescents), while the well as in the mental health and criminal justice systems.
main aim of the current study was to test it in a specific sub-
population (adolescents with criminal convictions). Compliance with Ethical Standards
A relevant portion of the sample of this study (60.4%)
was assessed for PCL: YV using file reviews, and this Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no competing
interests.
may represent a limitation of our study. However, several
studies have shown that PCL scores derived from exten-
Ethical Approval All procedures implemented in our study were in ac-
sive file data are reliable and accurate, and acceptable for cordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee
research purposes, although the PCL-R and PCL:YV and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its amendments or compara-
were not originally designed to be used without a clinical ble ethical standards.
interview. (Hillege et al. 2011). Also Brazil and Forth
(2016) reported that some research has found that file-
only assessments of the PCL:YV have produced reliable
and valid results as well. References
Nevertheless, besides these limitations, the results found in
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). DSM-5. Diagnostic and sta-
our comprehensive analysis offer Italian researchers and clini-
tistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington: American
cians a suitable measurement instrument able to identify key Psychiatric Publishing.
2466
Bachman, L. F. (2004). Statistical analyses for language assessment.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Barroso, R., Figueiredo, P., Ramiao, E., & Fanti, K. (2020). Using psy-
chopathy to identify differences between variants of juveniles who
have committed sexual offenses. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 1-
12.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
Blackburn, R. (1998). Psychopathy and the contribution of personality to
violence. In T. Millon, E. Simonsen, M. Birket-Smith, & R. D.
Davis (Eds.), Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal, and violent behav-
ior (p. 50–68). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Boduszek, D., & Debowska, A. (2016). Critical evaluation of psychopa-
thy measurement (PCL-R and SRP-III/SF) and recommendations
for future research. Journal of Criminal Justice, 44, 1–12.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New
York, NY: Wiley.
Borum, R., Bartel, P., & Forth, A. (2006). SAVRY - structured assessment
of violence risk in youth professional manual. Lutz, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Brandt, J. R., Kennedy, W. A., Patrick, C. J., & Curtin, J. J. (1997).
Assessment of psychopathy in a population of incarcerated adoles-
cent offenders. Psychological Assessment, 9, 429–435.
Brazil, K., & Forth, A. (2016). Psychopathy checklist: Youth version
(PCL:YV). In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. Cham:
Springer.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research.
New York, NY: Guilford.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Single sample cross-validation
indices for covariance structure. British Journal of Mathematical
and Statistical Psychology, 37, 62–83.
Butcher, J. N., Williams, C. L., Graham, J. R., Archer, R. P., Tellegen, A.,
Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Kaemmer, B. (2005). MMPI-A - Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent. Adattamento
italiano a cura di S. Sirigatti, & P. Pancheri. Firenze: Giunti O.S.
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic
concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Campbell, M. A., Porter, S., & Santor, D. (2004). Psychopathic traits in
adolescent offenders: An evaluation of criminal history, clinical, and
psychosocial correlates. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 2, 23–47.
Chou, C., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Estimates and tests in structural equa-
tion modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling:
Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 37–55). Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Coid, J., Yang, M., Ullrich, S., Roberts, A., & Hare, R. (2009). Prevalence
and correlates of psychopathic traits in the household population of
Great Britain. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 32(2),
65–73.
Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2001). Refining the construct of psychopa-
thy: Towards a hierarchical model. Psychological Assessment, 13,
171–188.
Cooke, D. J., Michie, C., & Hart, S. D. (2006). Facets of clinical psy-
chopathy: Toward a clearer measurement. In C. Patrick (Ed.),
Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 91–106). New York, NJ: Guilford
Press.
Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test
statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory
factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16–29.
Dadds, M. R., Fraser, J., Frost, A., & Hawes, D. J. (2005). Disentangling
the underlying dimensions of psychopathy and conduct problems in
childhood: A community study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 73, 400–410.
Das, J., de Ruiter, C., Doreleijers, T., & Hillege, S. (2009). Reliability and
construct validity of the dutch psychopathy checklist: Youth version:
Curr Psychol (2022) 41:2457–2468
Findings from a sample of male adolescents in a juvenile justice
treatment institution. Assessment, 16, 88–102.
Dolan, M., & Rennie, C. (2006). Reliability and validity of the psychop-
athy checklist: Youth version in a UK sample of conduct disordered
boys. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 65–75.
Dolan, M. C., & Rennie, C. E. (2008). The structured assessment of
violence risk in youth as a predictor of recidivism in a United
Kingdom cohort of adolescent offenders with conduct disorder.
Psychological Assessment, 20, 35–46.
Edens, J. F., & Campbell, J. S. (2007). Identifying youths at risk for
institutional misconduct: Analytic investigation of the psychopathy
checklist measures. Psychological Services, 4, 13–27.
Edens, J. F., Skeem, J. L., Cruise, K. R., & Cauffman, E. (2001).
Assessment of juvenile psychopathy and its association with vio-
lence: A critical review. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19(1), 53–
80.
Edens, J. F., Campbell, J. S., & Weir, J. M. (2007). Youth psychopathy
and criminal recidivism: A meta-analysis of the psychopathy check-
list measures. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 53–75.
Forth, A. E., Kosson, D. S., & Hare, R. D. (2003). Hare psychopathy
checklist: Youth version (PCL:YV). Toronto, ON: Multi-Health
Systems Inc..
Forth, A. E., Kosson, D. S., & Hare, R. D. (2012). PCL:YV - Hare
psychopathy checklist: Youth version. Adattamento italiano a cura
di U. Sabatello, L. Abbate & M. Spissu. Firenze: Giunti O.S.
Frick, P. J. (2002). Juvenile psychopathy from a developmental perspec-
tive: Implications for construct development and use in forensic
assessments. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 247–253.
Frick, P. J., & Dickens, C. (2006). Current perspectives on conduct dis-
order. Current Psychiatry Reports, 8, 59–72.
Frick, P. J., & White, S. F. (2008). Research review: The importance of
callous unemotional traits for developmental models of aggressive
and antisocial behaviour. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry,
49, 359–375.
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.
Frick, P. J., Cornell, A. H., Barry, C. T., Bodin, S. D., & Dane, H. E.
(2003a). 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.
Frick, P. J., Kimonis, E. R., Dandreaux, D. M., & Farell, J. M. (2003b).
The 4-year stability of psychopathic traits in non referred youth.
Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21, 713–736.
Frick, P. J., Ray, J. V., Thornton, L. C., & Kahn, R. E. (2014). Can callous-
unemotional traits enhance the understanding, diagnosis, and treat-
ment of serious conduct problems in children and adolescents? A
comprehensive review. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1–57.
Geerlings, Y., Asscher, J. J., Stams, G. J .J. M., & Assink, M. (2020). The
association between psychopathy and delinquency in juveniles: A
three-level meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
50:101342.
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(4), 427–449.
Gretton, H., Hare, R., & Catchpole, R. (2004). Psychopathy and
offending from adolescent to adulthood: A 10-year follow-up.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 636–645.
Hare, R. D. (1991). Hare psychopathy checklist – Revised manual.
Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. D. (1998). The Hare PCL:R: Some issues concerning its use and
misuse. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 99–119.
Hare, R. D. (2003). The psychopathy checklist—Revised (2nd ed.).
Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.
Curr Psychol (2022) 41:2457–2468
Hare, R. D. (2016). Psychopathy, the PCL-R, and criminal justice: Some
new findings and current issues. Canadian Psychology, 57, 21–34.
Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2006). The PCL:R assessment of psy-
chopathy: Development, structural properties, and new directions.
In C. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 58–90). New
York: Guilford Press.
Hare, R. D., Harpur, T. J., Hakstian, A. R., Forth, A. E., Hart, S. D., &
Newman, J. P. (1990). The revised psychopathy checklist:
Reliability, and factor structure. Psychological Assessment: A
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 3, 338–341.
Hare, R. D., Hart, S. D., & Harpur, T. J. (1991). Psychopathy and the
DSM-IV criteria for antisocial personality disorder. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 3, 391–398.
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.
Hempel, I., Buck, N., Cima, M., & van Marle, H. (2013). Review of risk
assessment instruments for juvenile sex offenders: What is next?
International Journal of Offender Theraphy and Comparative
Criminology, 57, 208–228.
Hillege, S., de Ruiter, C., Smits, N., & van der Baan, H. (2011). Structural
and metric validity of the Dutch translation of psychopathy check-
list: Youth version (PCL:YV). International Journal of Forensic
Mental Health, 10, 346–357.
Hilterman, E. L., Nicholls, T. L., & van Nieuwenhuizen, C. (2014).
Predictive validity of risk assessments in juvenile offenders:
Comparing the SAVRY, PCL:YV, and YLS/CMI with unstructured
clinical assessments. Assessment, 21, 324–339.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure model-
ing: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification.
Psychological Methods, 4, 424–453.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covari-
ance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alterna-
tives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. G. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference
guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Kosson, D. S., Cyterski, T. D., Steuerwald, B. L., Neumann, C. S., &
Walker-Matthews, S. (2002). The reliability and validity of the psy-
chopathy checklist: Youth version (PCL:YV) in non incarcerated
adolescent males. Psychological Assessment, 14, 97–109.
Kosson, D. S., Neumann, C. S., Forth, A. E., Salekin, R. T., Hare, R. D.,
Krischer, M. K., & Sevecke, K. (2013). Factor structure of the Hare
psychopathy checklist: Youth version (PCL:YV) in adolescent fe-
males. Psychological Assessment, 25, 71–83.
Lee, Z., Salekin, R. T., & Iselin, A. R. (2010). Psychopathic traits in
youth: Is there evidence for primary and secondary subtypes?
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 381–393.
Leenarts, L., Dölitzsch, C., Pérez, T., Schmeck, K., Fegert, J. M., &
Schmid, M. (2017). The relationships between gender, psychopathic
traits and self-reported delinquency: A comparison between a gen-
eral population sample and a high-risk sample for juvenile delin-
quency. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 11,
article 64.
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Fowler, K. A. (2006). The self-report assessment of
psychopathy: Problems, pitfalls, and promises. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.),
Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 107–132). New York: Guilford
Press.
Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Moffitt, T. E.,
Caspi, A., & Lynam, D. (2001). Male mental health problems, psy-
chopathy and personality traits: Key findings from the first fourteen
years of the Pittsburgh youth study. Clinical Child and Family
Psychology Review, 4, 273–297.
Lynam, D. R., & Gudonis, L. (2005). The development of psychopathy.
Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 381–407.
2467
Lynam, D. R., & Vachon, D. D. (2012). Antisocial personality disorder in
DSM-5: Missteps and missed opportunities. Personality Disorder:
Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 483–495.
Lynam, D. R., Caspi, A., Moffit, T. E., Raine, A., Loeber, R., &
Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2002). Adolescent psychopathy and the
big five: Results from two samples. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 33, 431–443.
Lynam, D. R., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2008). The stability
of psychopathy from adolescence into adulthood: The search for
moderators. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 228–243.
Lynam, D. R., Charnigo, R., Moffitt, T. E., Raine, A., Loeber, R., &
Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2009). The stability of psychopathy across
adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 1133–1153.
Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis
with applications. Biometrika, 57, 519–530.
Martens, M. P. (2005). The use of structural equation modeling in
counseling psychology research. The Counseling Psychologist, 33,
269–298.
Muthén, B. O., & Kaplan, D. (1985). A comparison of some methodol-
ogies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables. British
Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 171–189.
Neumann, C. S., Vitacco, M. J., Hare, R. D., & Wupperman, P. (2005).
Reconstruing the “reconstruction” of psychopathy: A comment on
Cooke, Michie, Hart, & Clark. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6,
624–640.
Neumann, C. S., Kosson, D. S., Forth, A. E., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Factor
structure of the Hare psychopathy checklist: Youth version in incar-
cerated adolescents. Psychological Assessment, 18, 142–154.
Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Newman, J. P. (2007). The super-ordinate
nature of the psychopathy checklist-revised. Journal of Personality
Disorders, 21, 102–117.
Parker, J., Sitarenios, G., & Hare, R. D. (2003). Large sample multi-group
analyses of the factor structure of the Hare psychopathy checklist-
revised. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 203–243.
Parks, G. A., & Bard, D. E. (2006). Risk factors for adolescent sex of-
fender recidivism: Evaluation of predictive factors and comparison
of three groups based upon victim type. Sexual Abuse, 18(4), 319–
342.
Pechorro, P., Barroso, R., Maroco, J., Vieira, R. X., & Gonçalves, R. A.
(2014). Psychometric properties of the psychopathy checklist: Youth
version among Portuguese juvenile delinquents. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,
59(12), 1322–1337.
Ridenour, T. A., Marchant, G. J., & Dean, R. S. (2001). Is the revised
psychopathy checklist clinically useful for adolescents? Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 19, 227–238.
Sabatello, U., Abbate, L., & Spissu, M. (2012). Hare psychopathy check-
list: Youth version (PCL:YV). Adattamento italiano. Firenze: Giunti
O.S.
Sabatello, U., Iliceto, P., & Stefanile, S. (Eds.). (2018). SAVRY -
Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth Adattamento della
versione italiana. Firenze: Hogrefe Editore.
Salekin, R. T., & Frick, P. J. (2005). Psychopathy in children and adoles-
cents: The need for a developmental perspective. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 403–409.
Salekin, R., Leistico, A., Neumann, C., DiCicco, T., & Duros, R. (2004).
Psychopathy and comorbidity in a young offender sample: Taking a
closer look at Psychopathy's potential importance over disruptive
behavior disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(3), 416–
427.
Salekin, R. T., Leistico, A. M. R., Trobst, K. K., Schrum, C. L., &
Lochman, J. E. (2005). Adolescent psychopathy and personality -
the interpersonal circumplex: Expanding evidence of a nomological
set. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 445–460.
Salekin, R. T., Brannen, D. N., Zalot, A. A., Leistico, A., & Neumann, C.
S. (2006). Factor structure of psychopathy in youth: Testing the
2468
applicability of the new four-factor model. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 33, 135–157.
Salekin, R. T., Rosenbaum, J., & Lee, Z. (2008). Child and adolescent
psychopathy: Stability and change. Psychiatry, Psychology and
Law, 15, 224–236.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to struc-
tural equation modeling. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Seagrave, D., & Grisso, T. (2002). Adolescent development and the mea-
surement of juvenile psychopathy. Law and Human Behavior, 26,
219–239.
Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y., & Stafford, K. P. (2007). A comparison of
MMPI-2 measures of psychopathic deviance in a forensic setting.
Psychological Assessment, 19, 430–436.
Seto, M. C., & Lalumiere, M. L. (2010). What is so special about male
adolescent sexual offending? A review and test of explanations
through Meta -analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 526–575.
Shepherd, S. M., & Strand, S. (2015). The utility of the psychopathy
checklist: Youth version (PCL: YV) and the youth psychopathic trait
inventory (YPI) - is it meaningful to measure psychopathy in young
offenders? Psychological Assessment, 28(4), 405–415.
Skeem, J., & Cauffman, E. (2003). Views of the downward extension:
Comparing the youth version of the psychopathy checklist with the
youth psychopathic traits inventory. Behavioral Sciences & the Law,
21, 737–770.
Spain, S., Douglas, K., Poythress, N., & Epstein, M. (2004). The rela-
tionship between psychopathic features, violence and treatment out-
come: The comparison of three youth measures of psychopathic
features. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 22, 85–102.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An
interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25,
173–180.
Curr Psychol (2022) 41:2457–2468
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics
(5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Talkington, V., Hughes, T. L., & Gacono, C. B. (2013). Vulnerabilities in
a school-based conduct disorder sample as identified by the
Rorschach and PCL:YV. Rorschachiana: Journal of the
International Society for the Rorschach, 1, 83–110.
Valentine, I. S. (2001). The relationship between depression, self-esteem,
trauma, and psychopathy in understanding conduct disordered ado-
lescents. ETD Collection for Pace University. AAI9991038.
Villar-Torres, P., Luengo, M. A., Romero, E., Sobral, J., & Gómez-
Fraguela, X. A. (2014). Assessing psychopathy in young people:
The validity of the psychopathic checklist: Youth version for a sam-
ple of Spanish offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20, 865–883.
Vitacco, M. J., & Kosson, D. S. (2010). Understanding psychopathy
through an evaluation of interpersonal behavior testing the factor
structure of the interpersonal measure of psychopathy in a large
sample of jail detainees. Psychological Assessment, 3, 638–649.
Vitacco, M. J., & Vincent, G. M. (2006). Understanding the downward
extension of psychopathy to youth: Implications for risk assessment
and juvenile justice. Implementation science and practice advances
research center publications. International Journal of Forensic
Mental Health, 5(1), 29–38.
Werner, K. B., Few, L. R., & Bucholz, K. K. (2015). Epidemiology,
comorbidity, and behavioral genetics of antisocial personality disor-
der and psychopathy. Psychiatric Annals, 45(4), 195–199.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.