4.4 Article

Longitudinal evidence that psychopathy scores in early adolescence predict adult psychopathy

期刊

JOURNAL OF ABNORMAL PSYCHOLOGY
卷 116, 期 1, 页码 155-165

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC/EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHING FOUNDATION
DOI: 10.1037/0021-843X.116.1.155

关键词

adolescent psychopathy; Childhood Psychopathy Scale; chronic offending; longitudinal

资金

  1. MRC [G0601483, G0100527] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [G0601483, G0100527] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Medical Research Council [G0100527, G0601483] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIMH NIH HHS [MH45070, MH49414, R01 MH060104-04, MH60104, R01 MH060104, R01 MH045070, R01 MH049414] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined the relation between psychopathy assessed at age 13 by using the mother-reported Childhood Psychopathy Scale (D. R. Lynam, 1997) and psychopathy assessed at age 24 by using the interviewer-rated Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV; S. D. Hart, D. N. Cox, & R. D. Hare, 1995). Data from over 250 participants of the middle sample of the Pittsburgh Youth Study were used to examine this relation; approximately 9% of the sample met criteria for a possible PCL:SV diagnosis. Despite the long time lag, different sources, and different methods, psychopathy from early adolescence into young adulthood was moderately stable (r = .31). The relation was present for the PCL:SV total and facet scores, was not moderated by initial risk status or initial psychopathy level, and held even after controlling for other age 13 variables. Diagnostic stability was somewhat lower. Both specificity and negative predictive power were good, and sensitivity was adequate, but positive predictive power was poor. This constitutes the first demonstration of the relative stability of psychopathy from adolescence into adulthood and provides evidence for the incremental utility of the adolescent psychopathy construct. Implications and future directions are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据