Factor structure of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV) in adolescent females.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite substantial evidence for the fit of the 3- and 4-factor models of Psychopathy Checklist-based ratings of psychopathy in adult males and adolescents, evidence is less consistent in adolescent females. However, prior studies used samples much smaller than recommended for examining model fit. To address this issue, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis of 646 adolescent females to test the fit of the 3- and 4-factor models. We also investigated the fit of these models in more homogeneous subsets of the full sample to examine whether fit was invariant across geographical region and setting. Analyses indicated adequate fit for both models in the full sample and was generally acceptable for both models in North American and European subsamples and for participants in less restrictive (probation/detention/clinic) settings. However, in the incarcerated subsample, the 4-factor model achieved acceptable fit on only two of four indices. Although model fit was not invariant across continent or setting, invariance could be achieved in most cases by simply allowing factor loadings on a single Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (Forth, Kosson, & Hare, 2003) item to vary across groups. In summary, in contrast to prior studies with small samples, current findings show that both the 3- and 4-factor models fit adequately in a large sample of adolescent females, and the factor loadings are largely similar for North American and European samples and for long-term incarcerated and shorter-term incarcerated/probation/clinic samples.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it