Psychopathy in adolescent offenders: An item response theory study of the antisocial process screening device–self report and the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have examined the item functioning of youth psychopathy measures or compared the functioning of clinician and self-report based indices. Even fewer studies have made these comparisons in both male and female adolescent samples. The present study examined the applicability of items from two psychopathy measures, the Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD; Frick, P. J., & Hare, R. D., 2001, The Antisocial Process Screening Device. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems) and Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV; Forth, A. E., Kosson, D. S., & Hare, R. D., 2003, The Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems), to adolescent boys and girls who had come into contact with the law. Item Response Theory was used to test item functioning of the two psychopathy indices. Examination of the Item Response Theory trace lines indicated that the APSD and the PCL:YV have both highly discriminating and poorly discriminating items and that the measures differ in the regions of psychopathy they cover. The PCL:YV is particularly effective at assessing interpersonal and affective features of psychopathy and to a lesser extent, lifestyle and antisocial features. The APSD appears to be effective at assessing narcissism and impulsivity but not callousness. In addition, the items most discriminating of the underlying construct of psychopathy for males and females demonstrate some important differences. These findings suggest that the measures may tap different underlying elements of the same overlaying construct. This may account for modest correlations between the measures. The findings suggest that clinicians should be aware of the regions that each measure best taps and also suggest that continued refinement and revisions to the youth psychopathy measures may be required.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".