MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280503925 · doi:10.1177/10731911221094256

The Proposed Specifiers for Conduct Disorder (PSCD) Scale: Factor Structure and Validation of the Self-Report Version in a Forensic Sample of Belgian Youth

2022· article· en· W4280503925 on OpenAlexaff
Olivier F. Colins, Athina Bisback, Cedric Reculé, Blair D. Batky, Laura López‐Romero, Robert D. Hare, Randall T. Salekin

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsPsychologySample (material)Forensic scienceScale (ratio)Clinical psychologyApplied psychologyCartographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the first study to test the psychometric properties of the self-report version of the Proposed Specifiers for Conduct Disorder (PSCD) in detained youth. The PSCD is a measure of the broad psychopathy construct, with grandiose-manipulative, callous-unemotional, daring-impulsive, and conduct disorder (CD) components. Participants (227 males) completed the PSCD along with other measures, including a diagnostic interview to assess Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM- 5) CD. Results support the PSCD’s proposed hierarchical four-factor structure. Correlations with an alternate measure of psychopathy and symptoms of CD support the convergent validity of PSCD scores. PSCD scores showed positive associations with criterion variables of emotional and regulatory functioning, aggression, substance use, and school problems. Finally, PSCD scores were unrelated to anxiety and depression, supporting the PSCD’s discriminant validity. Findings indicate that the PSCD is a promising measure for assessing psychopathic traits in detained male adolescents, though its incremental validity is in need of further scrutiny.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssessmentSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207