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,

widely associated also with callous and unemotional features
Psychopathy can be defined as a higher-order construct which reported into Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
emphasizes deficits in affective and interpersonal functioning, Disorders (DSM-5) as markers of severe conduct disorder
while conduct disorder and antisocial personality disorder pri- (APA 2013), which can be associated with serious aggressive
marily focus on behavioral problems (Hare 1998; Hare et al. and violent behavior (Frick et al. 2014).
1991; Vitacco and Kosson 2010). Psychopathy is a severe The application of the concept of psychopathy (down-
syndrome of personality pathology characterized by a system ward extension of Adult Psychopathy) to children and ad-
of interpersonal, affective and behavioral characteristics, as olescents (Vitacco and Vincent 2006; Skeem and Cauffman
grandiose sense of self-worth, conning/manipulative, shallow 2003; Lynam and Gudonis 2005) has stimulated debate in
affect, lack of remorse, antisocial behavior, impulsivity, 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.
* Fiorenzo Laghi Also, an overestimation of externalizing behaviours (such
[email protected] as impulsiveness and sensation seeking) which appear
1
mostly phase-specific, could be part of this approach.
Department of Pediatrics and Child Neuropsychiatry, Sapienza
Seagrave and Grisso (2002) suggest that as adolescence is
University of Rome, Rome, Italy
2
a considerable developmental change period, the psychop-
Independent Researcher, Bruxelles, Belgium
athy has a high false-positive rate in such subjects, therefore
3
S&P Statistics and Psychometrics Ltd, Rome, Italy caution is important when long-term decisions related to the
4
Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, management of juvenile lawbreakers in forensics settings
Rome, Italy are made on the basis of tools assessing psychopathy (see
5
Present address: Private Clinical Practice, Rome, Italy also Edens et al. 2001; Hart et al. 2002). Conversely other
6
Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, Sapienza researchers, based on longitudinal studies, found that the
University of Rome, via dei Marsi 78, 00185 Rome, Italy psychopath trait is relatively stable from adolescence into
2458 Curr Psychol (2022) 41:2457–2468

adulthood (Frick 2002; Lynam et al. 2009; Salekin and Many authors indicate that recidivism is predicted by ado-
Frick 2005; Salekin et al. 2005, 2008). lescent psychopathy, on the basis of the relation between psy-
However, research on both adult and adolescent psychop- chopathy and subsequent offending among juvenile law-
athy, currently shows different challenges for researchers, cli- breakers (Edens and Campbell 2007; Edens et al. 2007;
nicians and the whole penal system, especially when aiming at Skeem and Cauffman 2003). In a 10-year retrospective study
rehabilitation (vs. punishment). The main challenges are the Gretton and colleagues reported that juveniles who scored
followings: 1) it is hard to estimate the prevalence of the dis- high (30 or above) on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist:
order in general population, when using self-report tools for its Youth Version (PCL:YV) were 3 times more likely to violently
assessment (see Werner et al. 2015), with the consequent risk offend than those who scored lower (Gretton et al. 2004), and
of underestimating the symptoms; 2) the studies’ samples are that adolescents who score higher on measures of psychopa-
pre-selected, mostly composed of subjects who have been in thy have also been associated with institutional violence
contact with the penal system and are often serving prison (Spain et al. 2004).
sentences. Particularly for adolescents, research is carried Many studies conducted with adolescent samples con-
out on samples defined as “high risk” for delinquency firmed that psychopathy predicts future institutional and
(Leenarts et al. 2017; Frick et al. 2003a). Since the term “at- post-discharge violence in adults, and it is associated with
risk” (Frick et al. 2003a) could have a prejudicial meaning for both the frequency of violent recidivism and a shorter period
children and juveniles, as they may not exhibit problematic to violent recidivism (Brandt et al. 1997), while studies con-
behavior later in life, prospective studies are needed to verify ducted to survey institutional violence suggest moderate cor-
the stability of the traits vs. their change over time. relations between psychopathy and verbal and physical ag-
Also, it is crucial to understand whether the psychopathic gression (Edens et al. 2007). In order to understand the devel-
traits belong only to a subgroup (those exhibiting more anti- opmental processes that lead to severe forms of personality
social behaviours, both violent and non-violent), or it is pos- disorders, and to carry out preventive interventions, an effec-
sible to distinguish - according to the characteristics of the tive assessment procedure of the potential childhood precur-
high/low callous–unemotional personality traits - subgroups sors of psychopathy is necessary. (Frick and White 2008; Hare
with different degrees of dangerousness and whether this as- 2016; Lynam and Vachon 2012). Furthermore, for adoles-
sessment can be applied to forensic and non-forensic samples cents, it is useful to include the assessment of comorbidity of
(Leenarts et al. 2017; Frick et al. 2003a). A few researches psychopathy not only with classic behavioural disorders
have indeed used non-forensic study samples (community (oppositional-defiant disorder, conduct disorder) but also with
samples, household population), or mixed samples (forensic other measures related to internalizing psychopathology (see
and non-forensic) (see Coid et al. 2009; Leenarts et al. 2017) Salekin et al. 2004). Gender and ethnic differences should be
also because the scoring of assessment tools such as the PCL, studied more in relation to the association between psycho-
are affected by the subjects criminal record and not only by pathic traits and criminal behaviour to understand their possi-
their psychiatric history. ble modulation effects (Geerlings et al. 2020).
Another promising research area is to differentiate the The Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV)
types of lawbreakers based on the criminal offense commit- (Forth et al. 2003) is a 20-item rating scale that has been
ted (general offense / violent offense / sexual offense), partly developed and validated for the assessment of psychopathic
neglected in the literature, and the risk of recidivism (see traits in adolescents, both boys and girls, aged 12 to 18 years.
Barroso et al. 2020; Gretton et al. 2001; Parks and Bard The instrument was adapted from the Hare Psychopathy
2006). This would help not only to refine our knowledge of Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) (Hare 1991, 2003), i.e. the most
psychopathy but also to identify the different risk profiles widely used measure of psychopathy in adults. The PCL:YV,
among lawbreakers. using a semi-structured interview and collateral information,
In adult literature it has been noted that the interpersonal/ measures interpersonal, affective, and behavioral features re-
affective items (as Manipulation for Personal Gain) are more lated to a widely understood concept of psychopathy. The
stable than the behavioural items (as Impulsivity), then the PCL:YV yields dimensional scores, and can be used to classi-
conceptualization of psychopathy should focus more on affec- fy individuals into groups for research or clinical purposes
tive and callous-unemotional traits -as lack of guilt and empa- (Neumann et al. 2007).
thy or poverty in emotional expression- providing important The PCL:YV validity has been verified in several studies
information about a subgroup of antisocial youth at early on- (Das et al. 2009; Kosson et al. 2002). In particular, the evalu-
set, at increased risk for future violent and aggressive behav- ation of the concurrent validity of the PCL:YV has been stud-
iour, with poor response to treatment, and maintenance of ied with respect to Conduct Disorder (CD), because this con-
conduct disorder along the transition towards adulthood, an struct, the antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy are
antisocial life-course persistent (Frick and Dickens 2006; often considered as developmental disorders characterized by
Frick et al. 2003b; Lynam et al. 2008). 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 Curr Psychol (2022) 41:2457–2468

structured interview and a review of case history information the Child Neuropsychiatry Department from the Justice
or other sources. Factor analytic studies yielded a four-factors Courts, and a procedure similar to the legal technical report
solution with following latent factors: Interpersonal, compilation had been applied: interviews with parents and
Affective, Lifestyle, and Antisocial. social services, tests administrations, etc.
The Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth The file’s length, content, and completeness for each sub-
(SAVRY) (Borum et al. 2006) is a risk assessment tool based ject were however heterogeneous, with some files having de-
on the structured professional judgment model and focused on tailed and elaborate information, others insufficient informa-
risk factors relevant to adolescents. The SAVRY includes 24 tion (as parents may have died or were in prison, the subjects
risk items, divided into three domains (historical, social/ were unaccompanied foreign minors, etc.). Therefore they
contextual and individual) and a protective domain with 6 were excluded.
items. The risk items have a three-level coding structure The trained observers were 2 licensed psychologists with a
(low, moderate, and high) and the protective items have a specific 48-h training on administering and scoring the
two-level structure (absent or present). PCL:YV. They assessed independently the PCL:YV inter-
The Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory – Adolescent views of 46 subjects.
(MMPI-A) (Butcher, Williams, Graham, Archer, Tellegen, For the SAVRY, data analyses included only subjects with
Ben-Porath, & Kaemmer. Italian version by Sirigatti and complete data, i.e. data from 85 subjects.
Pancheri 2005), is a questionnaire used to evaluate personality For the MMPI-A, we experienced a general low compli-
and emotional problems in adolescents aged 14–18 years. ance of the minors during the test administration, along with
other specific difficulties: foreigner subjects could not fully
Procedure understand the Italian language, subjects with ADHD or learn-
ing disabilities and subjects under sedation can not complete
Over a 6-year period we collected data from different treatment the test. Consequently, only data from 17 subjects could be
centers in 3 Italian regions (i.e., Lazio, Emilia Romagna and analyzed.
Calabria) which collaborate with the Government Department
of Juvenile Justice, and from the records of different Justice Statistical Analyses
Courts (N = 49: 42%). Other data were drawn from subjects
who were inpatients at the Child Neuropsychiatry Department We calculated descriptive statistics as means, standard devia-
of Sapienza University of Rome. These authors of criminal tion, skewness, kurtosis, Pearson’s r correlation coefficients,
offenses, for comorbidities were admitted to the psychiatric non-parametric Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients,
specialist unit for adolescents (N = 67: 58%). Written informed t-test for independent samples, and K coefficient.
consent from the subjects, or their parents, or their legal guard- Furthermore, reliability analyses to assess the internal consis-
ians was obtained. The study protocol received ethical approv- tency were performed with CR (composite reliability). For
al from the institution research ethics committee. computing Explorative Factor Analysis (EFA), principal axis
For the PCL:YV, the file reviews included information factoring (PAF) with Promax rotation was utilized, starting
from different sources (e.g., police, parents, etc.), and different from the conceptual consideration that the underlying factors
contexts of the youth’s life (e.g., home, school, institution, may be correlated. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to
etc.). For 49 subjects (42%), the files used were legal technical cross validate the factor structures derived from the EFA
reports from treatment centers and Justice Courts, while for 67 (Bollen 1989).
cases (58%) of the Child Neuropsychiatry Department, the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) allows for a test of
files used were clinical records. specific hypotheses concerning the relation between observed
The legal technical reports are reports compiled according to variables and their underlying latent constructs (Brown 2006).
national guidelines by different professionals (i.e., licensed We used the following criteria to evaluate the overall goodness
child psychiatrists / psychiatrists / psychologists). They have of fit. The χ2 value close to zero indicates a small difference
one-to-one meetings with the minor, in order to examine the between expected vs. observed covariance matrices, with the
subject’s personality (through interviews and tests), run inter- probability level > .05, which shows the absence of meaning-
views with parents or legal guardians where present, and collect ful unexplained variance. Moreover, to estimate a better good-
records from Social Services, medical records, and information ness of fit, due to the fact that χ2 is sensitive to sample size, we
from other sources (e.g. school records). Regarding documents calculated the ratio of χ2 to degrees of freedom, expected to be
collected from prison records, they included the medical re- less than 3 to accept the data-model fit. In addition we utilized
cords, the reports from the USSM (Social Services Office for the Comparative Fit Index >.95 (CFI; Bentler 1990), to com-
underage subjects), and in some cases, psychiatric reports. pare the fit of a model of interest to the fit of the baseline
The clinical records were somewhat similar in content to model, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation <.06
the legal technical reports, as the inpatients had been sent to (RMSEA; Steiger 1990), as measure of approximate fit in the
Curr Psychol (2022) 41:2457–2468 2461

population, and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual Factorial Structure Explorative Factor Analysis (EFA) was
<.08 (SRMR; Jöreskog and Sörbom 1996), as indication of utilized to verify the underlying structure of the original ver-
the extent of error resulting from the estimation of the speci- sion of the test already established on the basis of theoretical
fied model (Browne and Cudeck 1993; Hu and Bentler 1998, foundations and empirical analyses, and factor analysis using
1999). CFA was carried out using LISREL 8.30 (SSI Inc., principal axis factoring with Promax rotation was applied to
Skokie, IL, USA), while all other analyses were carried out the correlation matrix and we extracted a four-factor solution
using SPSS 20.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). 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
Results on the appropriate factors, with the exception of the item
“Serious Violation of Conditional Release” and the item
Factorial Structure, Internal Consistency, “Parasitic Orientation”, that had anyway satisfactory loadings
and Concurrent Validity of .31 and .32 respectively. The Factor I (Antisocial)
accounted for 26.06% of the variance (eigenvalue = 5.21),
For the PCL:YV interviews, the inter-rater agreement was factor II (Interpersonal) accounted for 11.40% (eigenvalue =
computed by using Kappa coefficient, reaching a satisfactory 2.28), factor III (Lifestyle) for 9.22% (eigenvalue = 1.98), fac-
outcome: Coefficient = .79; Standard error = .14. tor IV (Affective) for 8.57% (eigenvalue = 1.72). Factor load-
Disagreements were solved by joint re-examination of the data ings and communalities are shown in Table 3.
and consensus coding. Before applying Confirmatory Factor Analysis with the
The distributions of the response percentages for all Maximum Likelihood Estimation, we examined the assump-
PCL:YV items were quite heterogeneous; “Poor Anger tion regarding the multivariate normality. For this purpose we
Control” and “Impulsivity” showed the highest rates calculated Mardia’s coefficient (1970) which resulted as
(38.8%), while a less lower rate (35%) was obtained for 412.19 < 20(20 + 2) = 440; according to Bollen (1989), when
“Failure to Accept Responsibility”; other items obtained more Mardia’s coefficient is less than v(v + 2), where v is the num-
than 20%, (e.g. “Lacks Goals” (28.4%), “Stimulation ber of observed variables, there is multivariate normality.
Seeking” (25.8%), “Shallow Affect” (25.0%), “Lack of Moreover, using the χ2 distribution we examined also the
Remorse/Guilt” (24.2%), and “Callous/Lack of Empathy distance of each case from the centroid of the means of all
(22.4%)). “Irresponsibility” (19%), “Impersonal Sexual the variables analysed, the Mahalanobis distance, and we did
Behavior” (12.1%), and “Early Problem Behavior” (12.1%) not find multivariate outliers as unusual combination of scores
obtained more than 10%. This group of items represented the on two or more variables (Tabachnick and Fidell 2007).
more frequent behaviours in the Italian sample of the present We applied CFA to verify the structure of the Italian vali-
study. dation of the PCL:YV, for testing whether the loadings of the
Descriptive statistics of the items of PCL:YV are listed in twenty observed variables on the latent factors, would con-
Table 2; we examined the data univariate normality, which is form to what expected on the basis of the underlying theoret-
ensured when both values of skewness and kurtosis are close ical model (Martens 2005). We used the covariance matrix
to zero, and within −2 and + 2 range (Bachman 2004). The and the maximum likelihood method to estimate three CFA
majority of the values for almost all the items were below models. The first model represented the three-factor model
these cut-offs, with the exception of “Serious Violation of from Cooke and Michie (2001). This model produced satisfy-
Conditional Release” and “Criminal Versatility” which ing fit indices as follows: χ 2 /df = 1.27; CFI = .95;
exceeded significantly the conventional criterion. This fact is RMSEA = .00, but with only 13 out of the 20 variables of
due to the substantive absence of these behaviours in our the PCL:YV. The second model represented a four-factor
sample, respectively 88.8% and 82.7% of “No” that we found model with 18 out of the 20 variables of the PCL:YV, exclud-
in the protocols. Moreover, unfortunately in literature there is ing “Impersonal Sexual Behavior” and “Unstable
not agreement on the presence of evident non-normality of the Interpersonal Relationships” (Hare 2003; Parker et al. 2003),
distribution; in fact, many authors consider skewness and kur- and produced the following fit indices:χ2/df = 1.46; CFI = .93;
tosis values close to 2 and 7, respectively, as moderately non- RMSEA = .08. They were slightly outside the accepted
normal (Muthén and Kaplan 1985; Chou and Bentler 1995; values, then the hypothesis that this model is a good fit to
Curran et al. 1996), while Kline (2011), after reviewing rele- the data was rejected. The third model represented a four-
vant studies, suggested values of skewness and kurtosis ex- factor model with latent factors correlated, in which all the
ceeding 3 and 20, respectively, as extremely non-normal. 20 variables were predicted to load onto the four factors de-
However, the results that were found in the present study did rived from the EFA in the validation sample (Sabatello et al.
not affect the total scores, so the shape of the distribution can 2012). Given that this model fit was not completely adequate,
be considered normal. 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 and “Lifestyle” (r = .55). Thus, we concluded that the four-
the errors of covariance, i.e. when two indicators co-vary for factor model with correlated factors, provided a good fit to the
other reasons than the shared influence of the latent factor, empirical data, supporting the robustness of the construct well
because they have something specific in common, decreasing measured by all the items.
the χ2 value to reach possibly p > .05 (Byrne 2010). We set
“Irresponsibility” with, respectively, “Parasitic Orientation”, Internal Consistency As reported in the Italian validation of
“Lacks Goals”, and “Serious Criminal Behavior”; “Parasitic the PCL:YV, (Sabatello et al. 2012), the four scales (i.e.,
Orientation” with “Lacks Goals”, and “Serious Criminal Interpersonal, Affective, Lifestyle, and Antisocial) were
Behavior” with “Criminal Versatility”. These modifications scored by adding up the score of the items endorsed on each
resulted in a more appropriate model to describe the relation- component, and the PCL:YV total score was composed by the
ships between the observed variables and the latent factors, sum of the scale scores. The internal consistency (composite
which was highly satisfactory, fitting the data as follows: χ2/ reliability) of each factor was acceptably high: “Antisocial”
df = .83; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = .00. All fitted indices are re- (CR = .744), “Interpersonal” (CR = .702), “Lifestyle”
ported in Table 4. (CR = .713), “Affective” (CR = .700), and PCL:YV total
The inspection of model parameters (Fig. 1), indicated that score (CR = .909).
all the items loaded on the hypothesized factor, and the stan-
dardized factor loadings, shown on each arrow -that represent Concurrent Validity Concurrent validity was evaluated using
the strength of the relation between the observed variables and Pearson’s r correlation coefficients between the SAVRY and
the latent factors (Schumacker and Lomax 2004)- were high the PCL:YV. A positive statistical significant association be-
and statistically significant, ranging from .37 (“Failure to tween the PCL:YV total score and the three domains of the
Accept Responsibility”) to .69 (“Impulsivity”). SAVRY, i.e. Historical (r = .650), Social/contextual (r = .562),
Moreover, the correlation between “Interpersonal” and Individual (r = .747), and the total score (r = .741) was found,
“Lifestyle” (r = .28), “Interpersonal” and “Affective” while, as expected, a negative correlation with the Protective
(r = .41), and “Affective and Lifestyle” (r = .43) were low indicator (r = −.633) was found.
but significant, while the other correlations were moderate Furthermore, we assessed the associations between the
and all statistically significant: “Interpersonal”, “Affective” psychopathological personality dimensions as measured by
and “Antisocial”, respectively (r = .49; r = .51), “Antisocial” the MMPI-A and the measure of psychopathy as measured
Curr Psychol (2022) 41:2457–2468 2463

by the PCL:YV. We used non-parametric Spearman Rank- factor, and then the interpersonal and lifestyle components,
Order correlations because there were few MMPI-A protocols were relevant. Instead, the results found in the Spanish version
(n = 17), and the results revealed statistical significant positive of the PCL:YV (Villar-Torres et al. 2014), appear consistent
correlations between PCL:YV total score and Depression with those of the Italian sample.
(r = .508), Psychopathic Deviate (r = .514), Paranoia However, as reported by Boduszek and Debowska (2016),
(r = .596), Psychasthenia (r = .658), Schizophrenia (r = .544), one of the main reasons for inconsistent findings across stud-
Hypomania (r = .714), Anxiety (r = .624), Obsessiveness ies may be the failure to compare a number of alternative
(r = .643), Alienation (r = .612), Anger (r = .571), Cynicism models. Given the inconsistencies among the PCL-R factor
(r = .674), Conduct problems (r = .566), Low Self-Esteem analytic literature, the authors provided a set of recommenda-
(r = .810), Low Aspiration (r = .768), Family Problems tions which would systemize future research. In addition,
(r = .691), Negative Treatment Indicators (r = .749), Alcohol/ some differences in data collection, −e.g. the current study
Drug Problem Proneness (r = .545), and Immaturity mainly used previous records vs. interviews for the
(r = .698). PCL:YV- could explain the different results across the studies.
Regarding the differences between Juvenile Sex-Offenders The internal consistency of each factor was acceptably
and Juvenile Non Sex-Offenders, the result of the MANOVA high: Antisocial, Interpersonal, Lifestyle, Affective, and
considering as dependent variables the dimensions of PCL:YV total score. Despite some significant low correlations
PCL:YV was statistically significant (Wilks’ Lambda = .73; between the Interpersonal factor with Lifestyle factor as well
F = 7.88; p < .001). The univariate ANOVA showed signifi- as with Affective factor, the correlation between the other
cant differences for Lifestyle, F = 25.97, p < .001, ηp2 = .19, dimensions were significant moderate, suggesting that they
Antisocial, F = 15.53, p < .001, η p 2 = .12, and for the measure different indicators of PCL:YV.
PCL:YV total score, F = 17.57, p < .001, ηp2 = .14, where Regarding the concurrent validity of the scale, as expected,
Juvenile Non Sex-Offenders (respectively: M = 4.78, SD = we found positive and high correlations with SAVRY scores, a
2.45; M = 3.30, SD = 1.80; M = 15.17, SD = 6.41) obtained negative association with the SAVRY Protective indicator
higher scores than Juvenile Sex-Offenders (Dolan and Rennie 2008; Hempel et al. 2013; Hilterman
(respectively: M = 2.38, SD = 2.47, M = 1.70, SD = 1.90; et al. 2014), and positive correlations with different MMPI-
M = 10.38, SD = 6.78). 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
Discussion patterns of personality deviations have been reported among
psychopathic disorder subjects and in general among mentally
The purpose of the present study was to confirm the factor disordered offenders: 1-Primary Psychopaths / 2-Secondary
structure of the Italian PCL:YV in a sample of adolescent Psychopaths / 3-Controled / 4-Inihbited. (Blackburn 1998).
boys with criminal convictions. Consistently with our data, the profiles 2 and 4 are low in
The results largely confirmed the anticipated four-factor self-esteem and anxious. In addition, the predicted correla-
structure of the PCL:YV. Confirmatory Factor Analysis was tions between psychopathy and self-esteem were not support-
used to test the three-factor model from Cooke and Michie ed either by the findings of a targeted study by Valentine
(2001), which provided a good fit to the data but only with (2001).
13 items (Neumann et al. 2006); then the four-factor model Our results showed also that Juvenile Violent Non Sex
with 18 of the 20 variables of the PCL:YV (Salekin et al. Offenders obtained significantly higher scores than Juvenile
2006) did not produce a good fit to the data and this hypoth- Sex Offenders in the PCL:YV. This finding is compatible with
esis was rejected. The third model represented a modified the results of a meta-analysis conducted by Seto and
four-factor model with latent factors correlated, in which all Lalumiere (2010) on 59 independent studies comparing male
the variables were predicted to load onto the four factors de- adolescent sex offenders with adolescent non-sex offenders.
rived from the Italian validation, and this model provided a The meta-analysis has showed that adolescent sex offenders
good fit to the data. The four-dimensional model hypothesized had much less extensive criminal histories, fewer antisocial
and tested in our study has been confirmed, and produced peers, and fewer substance use problems compared with
adequate fit indices, revealing appropriate to describe the as- non-sex offenders.
sociation between the observed variables and the latent fac- Several previous studies highlighted deficits in affective
tors, and good fit to the data. Our results differ from those and interpersonal functioning, and their links with antisocial
obtained in the Dutch and in the Portuguese validations of personality and/or behavioural problems, for a better under-
the PCL:YV (Hillege et al. 2011; Pechorro et al. 2014). In standing of the developmental processes that may lead to per-
those studies, for assessing psychopathy, the antisocial factor sonality disorders as potential predictors of psychopathy and
was not the best factor model, while primarily the affective 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 this kind of studies within the Italian cultural context.
PCL:YV as reliable and valid tool (Dolan and Rennie 2006; Consistently, as indicated by Neumann et al. (2007), “a fruitful
Kosson et al. 2002; Ridenour et al. 2001). approach would be to identify item characteristics (item load-
In conclusion, we consider our results as explicative of the ings, thresholds) from diverse measures that match or compli-
underlying construct; we tested that the Italian version of the ment the items”, aiming at obtaining “psychometrically sound
PCL:YV can be a suitable tool for the assessment of psychop- measures which precisely represent the construct in a mathe-
athy dimensions, and we expect it to further contribute to the matical form that can be easily understood”.
identification of differences among different dimensions of A key limitation of the current study is the small sample
psychopathy and to a better comprehension of their impact size that was used, even if -limited to goodness of fit- only
on the development and maintenance of pathological condi- parameters that are not sensitive to small sample size were
tions and behaviours. used. The sample subjects’ recruitment and data collection
Moreover, since only few scales assessing psychopathy in have been extremely difficult, given the great specificity of
adolescents have been validated in Italy to date, we consider the population to be investigated in our study; however, our
promising the associations found with the SAVRY scales: the sample size is comparable to similar studies using the same
Italian validation of this instrument has been recently pub- sample size (Dolan and Rennie 2006; Kosson et al. 2002). Yet,
lished (Sabatello et al. 2018), thus contributing to strengthen 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 Curr Psychol (2022) 41:2457–2468

Bachman, L. F. (2004). Statistical analyses for language assessment. Findings from a sample of male adolescents in a juvenile justice
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. treatment institution. Assessment, 16, 88–102.
Barroso, R., Figueiredo, P., Ramiao, E., & Fanti, K. (2020). Using psy- Dolan, M., & Rennie, C. (2006). Reliability and validity of the psychop-
chopathy to identify differences between variants of juveniles who athy checklist: Youth version in a UK sample of conduct disordered
have committed sexual offenses. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 1- boys. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 65–75.
12. Dolan, M. C., & Rennie, C. E. (2008). The structured assessment of
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. violence risk in youth as a predictor of recidivism in a United
Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. Kingdom cohort of adolescent offenders with conduct disorder.
Blackburn, R. (1998). Psychopathy and the contribution of personality to Psychological Assessment, 20, 35–46.
violence. In T. Millon, E. Simonsen, M. Birket-Smith, & R. D. Edens, J. F., & Campbell, J. S. (2007). Identifying youths at risk for
Davis (Eds.), Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal, and violent behav- institutional misconduct: Analytic investigation of the psychopathy
ior (p. 50–68). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. checklist measures. Psychological Services, 4, 13–27.
Boduszek, D., & Debowska, A. (2016). Critical evaluation of psychopa- Edens, J. F., Skeem, J. L., Cruise, K. R., & Cauffman, E. (2001).
thy measurement (PCL-R and SRP-III/SF) and recommendations Assessment of juvenile psychopathy and its association with vio-
for future research. Journal of Criminal Justice, 44, 1–12. lence: A critical review. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19(1), 53–
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New 80.
York, NY: Wiley. Edens, J. F., Campbell, J. S., & Weir, J. M. (2007). Youth psychopathy
Borum, R., Bartel, P., & Forth, A. (2006). SAVRY - structured assessment and criminal recidivism: A meta-analysis of the psychopathy check-
of violence risk in youth professional manual. Lutz, FL: list measures. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 53–75.
Psychological Assessment Resources. Forth, A. E., Kosson, D. S., & Hare, R. D. (2003). Hare psychopathy
Brandt, J. R., Kennedy, W. A., Patrick, C. J., & Curtin, J. J. (1997). checklist: Youth version (PCL:YV). Toronto, ON: Multi-Health
Assessment of psychopathy in a population of incarcerated adoles- Systems Inc..
cent offenders. Psychological Assessment, 9, 429–435. Forth, A. E., Kosson, D. S., & Hare, R. D. (2012). PCL:YV - Hare
Brazil, K., & Forth, A. (2016). Psychopathy checklist: Youth version psychopathy checklist: Youth version. Adattamento italiano a cura
(PCL:YV). In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), di U. Sabatello, L. Abbate & M. Spissu. Firenze: Giunti O.S.
Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. Cham: Frick, P. J. (2002). Juvenile psychopathy from a developmental perspec-
Springer. tive: Implications for construct development and use in forensic
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. assessments. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 247–253.
New York, NY: Guilford.
Frick, P. J., & Dickens, C. (2006). Current perspectives on conduct dis-
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Single sample cross-validation
order. Current Psychiatry Reports, 8, 59–72.
indices for covariance structure. British Journal of Mathematical
Frick, P. J., & White, S. F. (2008). Research review: The importance of
and Statistical Psychology, 37, 62–83.
callous unemotional traits for developmental models of aggressive
Butcher, J. N., Williams, C. L., Graham, J. R., Archer, R. P., Tellegen, A.,
and antisocial behaviour. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry,
Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Kaemmer, B. (2005). MMPI-A - Minnesota
49, 359–375.
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent. Adattamento
Frick, P. J., O’Brien, B. S., Wootton, J. M., & McBurnett, K. (1994).
italiano a cura di S. Sirigatti, & P. Pancheri. Firenze: Giunti O.S.
Psychopathy and conduct problems in children. Journal of
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic
Abnormal Psychology, 103, 700–707.
concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge. Frick, P. J., Cornell, A. H., Barry, C. T., Bodin, S. D., & Dane, H. E.
Campbell, M. A., Porter, S., & Santor, D. (2004). Psychopathic traits in (2003a). Callous-unemotional traits and conduct problems in the
adolescent offenders: An evaluation of criminal history, clinical, and prediction of conduct problem severity, aggression, and self-report
psychosocial correlates. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 2, 23–47. of delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31(4), 457–
Chou, C., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Estimates and tests in structural equa- 470.
tion modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Frick, P. J., Kimonis, E. R., Dandreaux, D. M., & Farell, J. M. (2003b).
Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 37–55). Thousand Oaks: The 4-year stability of psychopathic traits in non referred youth.
Sage. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21, 713–736.
Coid, J., Yang, M., Ullrich, S., Roberts, A., & Hare, R. (2009). Prevalence Frick, P. J., Ray, J. V., Thornton, L. C., & Kahn, R. E. (2014). Can callous-
and correlates of psychopathic traits in the household population of unemotional traits enhance the understanding, diagnosis, and treat-
Great Britain. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 32(2), ment of serious conduct problems in children and adolescents? A
65–73. comprehensive review. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1–57.
Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2001). Refining the construct of psychopa- Geerlings, Y., Asscher, J. J., Stams, G. J .J. M., & Assink, M. (2020). The
thy: Towards a hierarchical model. Psychological Assessment, 13, association between psychopathy and delinquency in juveniles: A
171–188. three-level meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
Cooke, D. J., Michie, C., & Hart, S. D. (2006). Facets of clinical psy- 50:101342.
chopathy: Toward a clearer measurement. In C. Patrick (Ed.), Gretton, H. M., McBride, M., Hare, R. D., O’Shaughnessy, R., & Kumka,
Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 91–106). New York, NJ: Guilford G. (2001). Psychopathy and recidivism in adolescent sex offenders.
Press. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(4), 427–449.
Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test Gretton, H., Hare, R., & Catchpole, R. (2004). Psychopathy and
statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory offending from adolescent to adulthood: A 10-year follow-up.
factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16–29. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 636–645.
Dadds, M. R., Fraser, J., Frost, A., & Hawes, D. J. (2005). Disentangling Hare, R. D. (1991). Hare psychopathy checklist – Revised manual.
the underlying dimensions of psychopathy and conduct problems in Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.
childhood: A community study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Hare, R. D. (1998). The Hare PCL:R: Some issues concerning its use and
Psychology, 73, 400–410. misuse. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 99–119.
Das, J., de Ruiter, C., Doreleijers, T., & Hillege, S. (2009). Reliability and Hare, R. D. (2003). The psychopathy checklist—Revised (2nd ed.).
construct validity of the dutch psychopathy checklist: Youth version: Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.
Curr Psychol (2022) 41:2457–2468 2467

Hare, R. D. (2016). Psychopathy, the PCL-R, and criminal justice: Some Lynam, D. R., & Vachon, D. D. (2012). Antisocial personality disorder in
new findings and current issues. Canadian Psychology, 57, 21–34. DSM-5: Missteps and missed opportunities. Personality Disorder:
Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2006). The PCL:R assessment of psy- Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 483–495.
chopathy: Development, structural properties, and new directions. Lynam, D. R., Caspi, A., Moffit, T. E., Raine, A., Loeber, R., &
In C. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 58–90). New Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2002). Adolescent psychopathy and the
York: Guilford Press. big five: Results from two samples. Journal of Abnormal Child
Hare, R. D., Harpur, T. J., Hakstian, A. R., Forth, A. E., Hart, S. D., & Psychology, 33, 431–443.
Newman, J. P. (1990). The revised psychopathy checklist: Lynam, D. R., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2008). The stability
Reliability, and factor structure. Psychological Assessment: A of psychopathy from adolescence into adulthood: The search for
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 3, 338–341. moderators. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 228–243.
Hare, R. D., Hart, S. D., & Harpur, T. J. (1991). Psychopathy and the Lynam, D. R., Charnigo, R., Moffitt, T. E., Raine, A., Loeber, R., &
DSM-IV criteria for antisocial personality disorder. Journal of Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2009). The stability of psychopathy across
Abnormal Psychology, 3, 391–398. adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 1133–1153.
Hart, S. D., Watt, K. A., & Vincent, G. M. (2002). Commentary on Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis
Seagrave and Grisso: Impressions of the state of the art. Law and with applications. Biometrika, 57, 519–530.
Human Behavior, 26, 241–245. Martens, M. P. (2005). The use of structural equation modeling in
Hempel, I., Buck, N., Cima, M., & van Marle, H. (2013). Review of risk counseling psychology research. The Counseling Psychologist, 33,
assessment instruments for juvenile sex offenders: What is next? 269–298.
International Journal of Offender Theraphy and Comparative Muthén, B. O., & Kaplan, D. (1985). A comparison of some methodol-
Criminology, 57, 208–228. ogies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables. British
Hillege, S., de Ruiter, C., Smits, N., & van der Baan, H. (2011). Structural Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 171–189.
and metric validity of the Dutch translation of psychopathy check- Neumann, C. S., Vitacco, M. J., Hare, R. D., & Wupperman, P. (2005).
list: Youth version (PCL:YV). International Journal of Forensic Reconstruing the “reconstruction” of psychopathy: A comment on
Mental Health, 10, 346–357. Cooke, Michie, Hart, & Clark. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6,
Hilterman, E. L., Nicholls, T. L., & van Nieuwenhuizen, C. (2014). 624–640.
Predictive validity of risk assessments in juvenile offenders: Neumann, C. S., Kosson, D. S., Forth, A. E., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Factor
Comparing the SAVRY, PCL:YV, and YLS/CMI with unstructured structure of the Hare psychopathy checklist: Youth version in incar-
clinical assessments. Assessment, 21, 324–339. cerated adolescents. Psychological Assessment, 18, 142–154.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure model- Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Newman, J. P. (2007). The super-ordinate
ing: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. nature of the psychopathy checklist-revised. Journal of Personality
Psychological Methods, 4, 424–453. Disorders, 21, 102–117.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covari- Parker, J., Sitarenios, G., & Hare, R. D. (2003). Large sample multi-group
ance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alterna- analyses of the factor structure of the Hare psychopathy checklist-
tives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. revised. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 203–243.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. G. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference Parks, G. A., & Bard, D. E. (2006). Risk factors for adolescent sex of-
guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International. fender recidivism: Evaluation of predictive factors and comparison
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation of three groups based upon victim type. Sexual Abuse, 18(4), 319–
modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. 342.
Kosson, D. S., Cyterski, T. D., Steuerwald, B. L., Neumann, C. S., & Pechorro, P., Barroso, R., Maroco, J., Vieira, R. X., & Gonçalves, R. A.
Walker-Matthews, S. (2002). The reliability and validity of the psy- (2014). Psychometric properties of the psychopathy checklist: Youth
chopathy checklist: Youth version (PCL:YV) in non incarcerated version among Portuguese juvenile delinquents. International
adolescent males. Psychological Assessment, 14, 97–109. Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,
Kosson, D. S., Neumann, C. S., Forth, A. E., Salekin, R. T., Hare, R. D., 59(12), 1322–1337.
Krischer, M. K., & Sevecke, K. (2013). Factor structure of the Hare Ridenour, T. A., Marchant, G. J., & Dean, R. S. (2001). Is the revised
psychopathy checklist: Youth version (PCL:YV) in adolescent fe- psychopathy checklist clinically useful for adolescents? Journal of
males. Psychological Assessment, 25, 71–83. Psychoeducational Assessment, 19, 227–238.
Lee, Z., Salekin, R. T., & Iselin, A. R. (2010). Psychopathic traits in Sabatello, U., Abbate, L., & Spissu, M. (2012). Hare psychopathy check-
youth: Is there evidence for primary and secondary subtypes? list: Youth version (PCL:YV). Adattamento italiano. Firenze: Giunti
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 381–393. O.S.
Leenarts, L., Dölitzsch, C., Pérez, T., Schmeck, K., Fegert, J. M., & Sabatello, U., Iliceto, P., & Stefanile, S. (Eds.). (2018). SAVRY -
Schmid, M. (2017). The relationships between gender, psychopathic Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth Adattamento della
traits and self-reported delinquency: A comparison between a gen- versione italiana. Firenze: Hogrefe Editore.
eral population sample and a high-risk sample for juvenile delin- Salekin, R. T., & Frick, P. J. (2005). Psychopathy in children and adoles-
quency. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 11, cents: The need for a developmental perspective. Journal of
article 64. Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 403–409.
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Fowler, K. A. (2006). The self-report assessment of Salekin, R., Leistico, A., Neumann, C., DiCicco, T., & Duros, R. (2004).
psychopathy: Problems, pitfalls, and promises. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Psychopathy and comorbidity in a young offender sample: Taking a
Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 107–132). New York: Guilford closer look at Psychopathy's potential importance over disruptive
Press. behavior disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(3), 416–
Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Moffitt, T. E., 427.
Caspi, A., & Lynam, D. (2001). Male mental health problems, psy- Salekin, R. T., Leistico, A. M. R., Trobst, K. K., Schrum, C. L., &
chopathy and personality traits: Key findings from the first fourteen Lochman, J. E. (2005). Adolescent psychopathy and personality -
years of the Pittsburgh youth study. Clinical Child and Family the interpersonal circumplex: Expanding evidence of a nomological
Psychology Review, 4, 273–297. set. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 445–460.
Lynam, D. R., & Gudonis, L. (2005). The development of psychopathy. Salekin, R. T., Brannen, D. N., Zalot, A. A., Leistico, A., & Neumann, C.
Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 381–407. S. (2006). Factor structure of psychopathy in youth: Testing the
2468 Curr Psychol (2022) 41:2457–2468

applicability of the new four-factor model. Criminal Justice and Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics
Behavior, 33, 135–157. (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Salekin, R. T., Rosenbaum, J., & Lee, Z. (2008). Child and adolescent Talkington, V., Hughes, T. L., & Gacono, C. B. (2013). Vulnerabilities in
psychopathy: Stability and change. Psychiatry, Psychology and a school-based conduct disorder sample as identified by the
Law, 15, 224–236. Rorschach and PCL:YV. Rorschachiana: Journal of the
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to struc- International Society for the Rorschach, 1, 83–110.
tural equation modeling. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Valentine, I. S. (2001). The relationship between depression, self-esteem,
Seagrave, D., & Grisso, T. (2002). Adolescent development and the mea- trauma, and psychopathy in understanding conduct disordered ado-
surement of juvenile psychopathy. Law and Human Behavior, 26, lescents. ETD Collection for Pace University. AAI9991038.
219–239. Villar-Torres, P., Luengo, M. A., Romero, E., Sobral, J., & Gómez-
Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y., & Stafford, K. P. (2007). A comparison of Fraguela, X. A. (2014). Assessing psychopathy in young people:
MMPI-2 measures of psychopathic deviance in a forensic setting. The validity of the psychopathic checklist: Youth version for a sam-
Psychological Assessment, 19, 430–436. ple of Spanish offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20, 865–883.
Seto, M. C., & Lalumiere, M. L. (2010). What is so special about male Vitacco, M. J., & Kosson, D. S. (2010). Understanding psychopathy
adolescent sexual offending? A review and test of explanations through an evaluation of interpersonal behavior testing the factor
through Meta -analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 526–575. structure of the interpersonal measure of psychopathy in a large
Shepherd, S. M., & Strand, S. (2015). The utility of the psychopathy sample of jail detainees. Psychological Assessment, 3, 638–649.
checklist: Youth version (PCL: YV) and the youth psychopathic trait
Vitacco, M. J., & Vincent, G. M. (2006). Understanding the downward
inventory (YPI) - is it meaningful to measure psychopathy in young
extension of psychopathy to youth: Implications for risk assessment
offenders? Psychological Assessment, 28(4), 405–415.
and juvenile justice. Implementation science and practice advances
Skeem, J., & Cauffman, E. (2003). Views of the downward extension:
research center publications. International Journal of Forensic
Comparing the youth version of the psychopathy checklist with the
Mental Health, 5(1), 29–38.
youth psychopathic traits inventory. Behavioral Sciences & the Law,
21, 737–770. Werner, K. B., Few, L. R., & Bucholz, K. K. (2015). Epidemiology,
Spain, S., Douglas, K., Poythress, N., & Epstein, M. (2004). The rela- comorbidity, and behavioral genetics of antisocial personality disor-
tionship between psychopathic features, violence and treatment out- der and psychopathy. Psychiatric Annals, 45(4), 195–199.
come: The comparison of three youth measures of psychopathic
features. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 22, 85–102. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25,
173–180.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.