Dizertatie Tot Cu Instrumente

PSYCHOPATHY IN DELINQUENT GIRLS:
AN EXAMINATION OF FACTOR STRUCTURE

DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
The Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of The Ohio State University
By
Ana Maria Ugueto, M.A.
****
The Ohio State University

2005
Dissertation Committee:
Dr. Michael Vasey, Advisor
Dr. Steven Beck
Dr. John Gibbs
Approved by
_____________________
Advisor
Graduate Program in Psychology
ABSTRACT
The present study investigated the validity of the two-factor model of psychopathy in a
juvenile justice sample of adolescents. Previous research conducted by Frick, OBrien,
Wootton, and McBurnett (1994) discovered that Callous and Unemotional (CU) Traits
and Impulsive, Conduct Problems (ICP) best represented psychopathy in youth; these
factors are correlated (r =0.50). However, this study and a subsequent study (Frick, Bodin,
& Barry, 2000) that confirmed the two-factor model have limited generalizability since
they were modeled on samples that were largely comprised of Caucasian males. The
purpose of the current study is to test the validity of the two-factor model in a sample of
Caucasian and African-American, adolescent girls. Forty-eight variables were selected
from the Global Risk Assessment Device (Gavazzi, Slade, Buettner, Partridge, Yarcheck,
& Andrews, 2003 ) and factor analyzed in an adjudicated sample of boys; a nine-factor
model (School Problems, Sexuality, Employment, CU Traits, Parent-Child Conflict,
Victimization, Internalizing Symptoms, Narcissism, and Aggression) emerged. An ICP
factor was not identified, although a CU traits and a Narcissism factor were retained. The
presence of a separate Narcissism factor is consistent with a three-factor model of
psychopathy (Frick et al., 2000). The nine-factor structure was replicated in another
sample of boys and a sample of girls in the juvenile justice system. No significant
differences in model fit were found across sex; the model fit was equivalent in both
samples. Behavioral correlates were invariant across sex; sexual promiscuity, aggression,
ii
and symptoms of anxiety and depression were all positively related to CU traits, as were
problems in school, conflicts between children and their parents, histories of
victimization, and employment difficulties. Strengths of this study include the large
sample of girls (n=736, 42% of total sample) and African-Americans (n=771, 44% of
total sample). Limitations include the use of a measure that was not specifically designed
to capture psychopathic traits and the limited randomization of the two samples of boys.
iii
Dedicated to M. and L.B.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Michael Vasey, for his continual support
through out graduate school. I greatly appreciate all of his ideas, suggestions, and
revisions.
I would like to thank Dr. Gavazzi, for so generously allowing me to use his data
for this endeavor. I would not have been able to investigate the factor structure of
psychopathy without his data.
I must thank my fabulous friends: Anya, Backpack, Jay, Colleen, Carp, and Mr.
Beercart, who have made graduate school one of the best times of my life.
A million thanks to Kristen Carpenter who provided hours of invaluable statistical
knowledge, advice, and humor.
I also want to thank Robin Gurkin for listening to my ramblings at all hours of the
day and night, for dispelling my insecurities, and for believing in even my most
unrealistic dreams.
I have to thank my marvelous sister, Toni, for being the best sister I could ever
have! Her love, understanding, passion, and keen fashion-sense have helped me develop
into the person I am.
I could not have completed this project with out the unwavering support of my
parents. Their love, generosity, and steadfast support have helped me accomplish all of
my goals.
VITA
December 10, 1976 ..................................Born: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
1999..........................................................Bachelor of Arts in Psychology
The University of Texas, Austin
1999-2000 ................................................University Fellow
2000-2004 ................................................Graduate Teaching Associate
2004-2005 ................................................Pediatric Psychology Intern
Rush University Medical Center, Chicago
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Psychology
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ......................................................................................................................... ii
Dedication .................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................v
Vita............................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................x
Chapters:
1. Introduction and Review of the Literature.................................................................1
Part I:
Prevalence of Antisocial Behavior.....................................................................5
DSM Classification System ...............................................................................6
Antisocial Behavior in Girls ..............................................................................7
Developmental Pathways of Conduct Disorder.................................................8
Part II:
The Construct of Psychopathy .........................................................................10
Psychopathy in Women ...................................................................................12
Psychopathy in Children ..................................................................................14
Psychopathy in Girls ........................................................................................18
Part III:
Study Description.............................................................................................21
vii
Study Hypotheses............................................................................................21
2. Methodology ............................................................................................................23
Participants.......................................................................................................23
Randomization of Sample................................................................................25
Measures ..........................................................................................................25
Procedure .........................................................................................................27
Analytic Strategy .............................................................................................27
3. Results......................................................................................................................32
Descriptive Statistics........................................................................................32
Boys Sample 1:
Exploratory Factor Analysis ............................................................................32
Reliabilities ......................................................................................................33
Confirmatory Factor Analysis..........................................................................34
Boys - Sample 2:
Reliabilities ......................................................................................................36
Girls:
Reliabilities ......................................................................................................39
Comparison of Correlation Strength................................................................39
4. Discussion ................................................................................................................40
Study Hypothesis 1 ..........................................................................................40
viii

Limitations ......................................................................................................46
Future Directions .............................................................................................48
General Conclusions ........................................................................................49
References....................................................................................................................51
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
Psychopathy Measures.....................................................................................60
Global Risk Assessment Device ......................................................................61
75 Items Selected from GRAD ........................................................................66
27 Variables Omitted from Item Selection ......................................................68
Final Item Selection from GRAD ....................................................................69
Descriptive Statistics, Boys Sample 1 ..........................................................71
Descriptive Statistics, Boys Sample 2 ..........................................................73
Descriptive Statistics, Girls..............................................................................75
Correlation Matrix, Boys .................................................................................77
10
Correlation Matrix, Girls .................................................................................89
11
RMSEA Values for CFA Models ..................................................................100
12
Correlation Matrix for Nine-Factor Model (EFA).........................................100
13
Nine-Factor Structure of Psychopathy (CFA) ...............................................101
14
Factor Reliabilities for Boys - Sample 1........................................................102
15
Factor Scale Correlations, Boys Sample 1..................................................107
16
Results of CFA, Boys Sample 2 .................................................................108
17
Fit Indices for Nested Models, Boys Sample 2...........................................108
18
Discrepancy Between Free and Fixed Estimates, Boys Sample 2..............109
19
Results of CFA when Model is Further Specified, Boys Sample 2............109
20
Factor Reliabilities, Boys Sample 2............................................................110
21
Factor Scale Correlations, Boys Sample 2..................................................115
22
Results of CFA, Girls.....................................................................................116
23
Fit Indices for Testing Nested Models, Girls.................................................116
24
Discrepancy Between Free and Fixed Estimates, Girls .................................117
25
Results of CFA when Model is Further Specified, Girls ...............................117
26
Factor Reliabilities, Girls ...............................................................................118
27
Factor Scale Correlations, Girls.....................................................................123
xi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In 1999, 2.5 million juveniles were arrested for various acts of antisocial behavior,
and over 100,000 juveniles were arrested for committing violent crimes (Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1999). One third to one half of all
adolescents report some type of antisocial behavior (Kazdin, 1995) and only six percent
of adolescents abstain entirely from aggressive or delinquent activities (Moffit, 1993).
Not surprisingly, disruptive behavior has become an increasingly prevalent focus of
research, and has been studied in the child and adolescent literature under numerous
labels such as delinquency (Kazdin, 1996), conduct disorder (DSM-IV; American
Psychiatric Association, 1994), antisocial behavior (Kazdin, 1996; Mash & Barkley,
1996), aggression (Dodge, 1991), and psychopathy (Fisher & Blair, 1998, Frick,
1998). Although each label applies to a unique set of behaviors or personality
characteristics, the underlying core elements to each descriptor are engagement in illegal
activities and lack of regard for others. Much debate has focused on the causes of such
behavior, with various theoretical models being proposed to identify psychological
processes related to the development of antisocial behaviors in children and adolescents.
Such etiological models include psychobiological factors (i.e., neuropsychological
deficits, male gender), sociocognitive variables (i.e., low socioeconomic status, deviant
peer group), and familial influences (i.e., poor attachment, genetic personality
contribution) (see Mash & Barkley, 1996 for review). Recent attention has focused on
psychopathy in the development and maintenance of antisocial behaviors in children and
adolescence.
The idea of a criminal personality type was first discussed by Philippe Pinel, an
early 18th century psychiatrist, who was concerned about patterns of behavior that were
marked by a complete lack or remorse and restraint. However, it was not until 1941,
when Cleckley described 16 criteria based on deviant personality traits and characteristics
(Cleckley, 1941; 1976) that the personality-based conceptualization of psychopathy was
established. Recently, the concept of psychopathy has gained prominence in
understanding antisocial behavior in men (i.e., Harpur, Hare, Hakstian, 1989; Hare et al.,
1991) and women (i.e., Salekin, Rogers, & Sewell, 1997; Cale & Lilienfeld, 2002), and
conduct disorder in boys (i.e., Fisher & Blair, 1998; Frick, 1998).
Based upon Cleckleys (1941, 1976) initial description of psychopaths, Hare and
Harpur developed a prominent two factor model of adult psychopathy (Hare et al., 1991;
Harpur, et al., 1989). Factor 1, Emotional Detachment, describes interpersonal and
affective characteristics of psychopathy, while Factor 2, Antisocial Lifestyle, describes
behaviors related to impulsivity and a criminal lifestyle (Hare, 1991). Several studies
investigating psychopathy have found that Factor 1 is positively related to ratings of
narcissism, histrionic personality disorder, and clinical ratings of psychopathy, while the
same factor is negatively related to empathy and anxiety (Hare, 1991; Hare et al., 1991;
Harpur et al., 1989). In contrast, Factor 2 is more strongly correlated with criminality and
Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD).
The concept of adult psychopathy has generated such substantial support in the
adult criminality literature that the investigation of psychopathy has been extended to
children and adolescents with antisocial behavior. In order to further identify and
understand children with severe and persistent CD who are most likely to continue
antisocial behaviors as an adult, Frick and colleagues has proposed a two-factor (Frick,
OBrien, Wootton, & McBurnett, 1994) and a three-factor (Frick, Bodin, & Barry, 2000)
model of childhood psychopathy. The two-factor model (Impulsive -conduct problems
[ICP] and Callous and Unemotional [CU] traits) is analogous to Hare and Harpurs
model of adult psychopathy, while the three-factor model includes a Narcissism factor.
The presence of CU Traits has successfully been used to identify a subset of children who
have high rates of conduct problems and aberrant personality traits (Caputo, Frick, &
Brodsky, 1999, Lyman, 1997). Moreover, CU traits are predictive of more severe and
more aggressive patterns of antisocial behavior at one-year (Frick, Cornell, Barry, Bodin,
& Dane, 2003) and four-year (Frick, Kimonis, Dandreaux, & Farell, 2003) follow-ups.
However, it is unclear if the construct of childhood psychopathy also applies to female
aggression since most research in this area has been conducted with antisocial boys.
Most studies investigating the role of psychopathy in the development and
maintenance of antisocial behaviors have concentrated on adolescent males (i.e., Brandt
et al., 1997; Loney et al., 2003; Spain et al., 2004) and only a few studies have used
mixed samples of girls and boys (i.e., Frick et al., 2003; Pardini et al., 2003). Moreover,
there are only a handful of studies that specifically address the factor structure of
psychopathy in a clinic-referred or juvenile justice sample of girls. Instead researchers
have continued to focus on persistent, aggressive behavior in male children and
adolescents and only included a minority of girls in the sample. The few studies that have
addressed the factor structure of psychopathy in mixed samples of girls and boys are
limited because (1) girls constituted a minority of the total sample (Frick et al., 1994), (2)
equivalent sample sizes could only be found in a community sample (Frick et al., 2000),
and (3) total sample size was so small that factor analyses could not be performed
(Falkenbach, Polythress, & Heide, 2003). Therefore, while psychopathic personality traits
can be detected in female samples, it is unclear if psychopathy in girls has the same factor
structure and behavioral correlates as psychopathy in males.
In summary, while there is expansive research on psychopathy in men and boys,
few studies have addressed the nature of psychopathy in women, and even fewer studies
have explored psychopathy in girls. Preliminary research with antisocial girls indicates
that girls are more likely than antisocial boys to behave covertly, lie, and engage in
nonviolent crimes and sexually promiscuous behaviors (Zoccolillo, 1993). As adults,
antisocial girls experience more symptoms of anxiety and depression, than men who were
antisocial boys (Robbins, 1986; Zoccolillo, 1992). Evidence of differential correlates in
boys and girls with conduct problems combined with sex specific correlates in adult
psychopathy suggest that girls may manifest CU traits differently than boys, and,
furthermore, that the factor structure and behavioral correlates of psychopathy may be
sex dependent.
Below, I will demonstrate the significance of psychopathy, and more specifically
CU traits, in the development of aggression and antisocial behaviors in girls. Furthermore,
I will provide a rationale for the validity of the two-factor structure of psychopathy,
already documented in community and clinic-referred samples of boys and adult
offenders, in an adjudicated sample of adolescent girls. The latter half of the introduction
will be divided into three parts. Part One will include reviews of (1) the prevalence of
antisocial behavior in childhood and adolescence, (2) the DSM classification system for
antisocial behavior, (3) a description of antisocial behaviors and correlates in girls, and (4)
the developmental pathways of antisocial behavior. Part Two will discuss psychopathy in
detail, including (1) Hare and Harpurs (Hare et al., 1991) adult model of psychopathy, (2)
recent evidence of psychopathy in adult women, (3) Fricks models of psychopathy in
children, and (4) the lack of investigation of psychopathy in girls. Lastly, Part Three will
include a description of the overall purpose of this study; in addition, specific hypotheses
will be described.
PART I: ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR IN CHILDREN

Prevalence of Antisocial Behavior
Antisocial behavior accounts for nearly 50% of all clinical referrals (Cohen, 1994)
and is one of the most costly problems to society, with millions of dollars spent annually
on juvenile detention services and court costs (Robbins, 1981). Even though adolescent
boys grossly outnumber adolescent girls in criminal activity, the overall crime rate for
girls is increasing at a higher rate than for any other population (Hennington, Hughes,
Cavell, & Thompson, 1998). From 1989 to 1993, the increase in rate of arrests for
female juveniles was double that of males (Poe-Yamagata & Burns, 1996). Similarly,
between 1985 and 1994, arrest rates for violent crimes increased by 125% for girls, in
comparison to only 67% for boys, and female arrests for property crimes increased by
22%, whereas rates for boys actually decreased (Hoyt & Scherer, 1998; Poe-Yamagata &
Burns, 1996). Additionally, being female was significantly correlated with carrying a
weapon on school grounds (Simon, Crosby, & Dahlberg, 1999). These statistics are
consistent with results of epidemiological studies indicating that conduct disorder is the
second most prevalent disorder in girls, with rates ranging from 2-6% in community
samples of youths and as high as 9.2% in samples of non-clinic referred youth (Zoccolillo,
Tremblay, & Vitaro, 1996), and may be the most persistent psychiatric problem facing
young women today (Zoccolillo, 1993).
DSM Classification System

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, children
and adolescents who display a persistent pattern of antisocial behavior that violates the
rights of others or societal standards are classified as having Conduct Disorder (CD),
(DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Criteria for CD include the presence
of three symptoms across the broad areas of Aggression to People and Animals,
Destruction of Property, Deceitfulness and Theft, and Serious Violations of Rules. Thus,
CD reflects a serious pattern of behaviors in which major societal rules and expectations
are violated and includes such behaviors as theft, vandalism, fire setting, truancy, lying,
drug and sexual abuse, as well as any other aggressive act (Kazdin, 1998).
A major criticism of the DSM-IV criteria for CD is that it is more effective in
identifying aggressive boys than aggressive girls. Such lower diagnostic rates of CD with
girls suggest that conduct disorder does not frequently occur in girls. One reason for the
discrepancy across sex may be that the dramatic rise in rates of antisocial behavior in
females is predominantly due to a rise in non-physically aggressive, covert behavior.
Research on aggressive girls has primarily focused on relational aggression (Crick,

Bigbee, & Howes, 1996) and indirect aggression (Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen,
1988), at the expense of understanding the development of CD. Development of
antisocial behaviors also differs across sex; such behaviors typically occur at a later age
of development for girls (adolescence) than they develop in boys (childhood) (Silverthorn
& Frick, 1999; Moffit & Caspi, 2000). Thus, any psychiatric diagnosis that emphasizes
overt aggression may lead to higher rates of CD in boys than girls. For example, in a
three year longitudinal study of 2,251 girls, the psychiatric diagnosis of CD did not
identify most preadolescent girls with early-onset, pervasive, and chronic antisocial
behaviors (Zoccolillo et al., 1996). Based on this finding, Zoccolillo and other researchers
(Zoccolillo, 1993; Zoccolillo & Rogers, 1991) have argued for separate diagnostic
criteria for CD in boys and girls and further suggest that criteria for CD in females should
include lower diagnostic thresholds and different symptoms like somatization and
excessive rule violations which appear to be unique predictors of antisocial behavior in
females (Zoccolillo, 1993).
Antisocial Behavior in Girls

Research that has focused on girls with antisocial behaviors has found many sex
specific correlates and symptoms of CD. For example, symptoms of CD in female
adolescents include chronic violations of rules at school, chronic lying, substance abuse,
stealing, running away, and high arrest rates for nonviolent crimes (Zoccolillo, 1993).
Additionally, girls with behavioral problems are more likely to experience internalizing
symptoms, like anxiety and depression, as adults compared to antisocial boys (Robbins,
1986; Zoccolillo, 1992). Somatization, or unexplained medical complaints, is another

correlate of antisocial behavior in girls which is not observed in males with CD.
Interestingly, somatization is highly correlated with adult female antisocial personality
disorder, which has been documented in the adult literature on psychopathy in women.
Girls with CD are also more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors. Pregnancy
rates for girls with CD are substantially higher (50% versus 8%) than adolescent girls
without behavioral problems (Zoccolillo & Rogers, 1991); furthermore, girls who are
severely aggressive have pregnancy rates 5.3 times higher than girls who are less
antisocial (Woodward & Fergusson, 1999). They are also more likely to get pregnant
before age 18 (Kovacs, Krol, & Voti, 1994), to have multiple sexual partners and not use
condoms (Capaldi, Stoolmiller, Clark, & Owen, 2002), and to associate with antisocial
men (Quinton & Rutter, 1988). This pattern of behavior leads girls with persistent
antisocial behaviors to engage in abusive, violent relationships (Rosenbaum & OLeary,
1981), and to develop poor parenting practices (Capaldi & Patterson, 1991) that allow
antisocial and aggressive behaviors to be transmitted to the next generation.
Developmental Pathways of Conduct Disorder

In addition to providing a diagnosis of CD, the DSM also specifies two
trajectories for conduct problems in children: childhood-onset and adolescent-onset.
Aggression that abruptly begins during adolescence, also called adolescent-limited
aggression, often depends on environmental influences, such as a deviant peer group or
lack of adult supervision, and typically ends as an adolescent matures into a responsible
adult (Moffit, Caspi, Dickson, Silva, & Stanton, 1996). These boys typically experience
less family dysfunction, are less likely to have cognitive impairments, impulsivity, or
overreactivity, and are more capable of establishing and maintaining social relationships
than the childhood-onset cohort (Moffit, 1993; Moffit et al., 1996; Patterson, 1993). In
contrast, aggression that begins in early childhood represents a persistent, stable pattern
of aggression across a variety of situations (Patterson, 1982). Boys on this pathway are
characterized by high levels of family dysfunction, low cognitive abilities, and high
levels of impulsivity and hyperactivity in addition to having a cold and callous
interpersonal style (Frick, 1994; Moffit, 1993; Lynam, 1996; Christian, Frick, Hill, Tyler,
& Frazer, 1997). Furthermore, children who develop serious conduct problems in
childhood are at extremely high risk for demonstrating a severe and chronic pattern of
antisocial behavior in adulthood (Frick & Loney, 1999; Moffit, 1993; Loeber, 1991).
Despite extensive research on childhood-onset and adolescent-limited trajectories
of aggression and widespread acceptance in the scientific community, little research has
been conducted to see if the development of aggression in girls mirrors the development
of conduct problems in boys. Instead, researchers have relied on the assumption that both
developmental pathways would also be true of girls. Contrary to existing assumptions,
new investigations of aggressive behaviors in girls have revealed a single, delayed-onset
pathway for antisocial girls (Moffit & Caspi, 2001; Silverthorn & Frick, 1999).
Most girls do not develop CD in childhood, but instead begin developing
antisocial behaviors in adolescence (see Silverthorn & Frick, 1999 for review).
Interestingly, these girls are more similar to boys who develop CD in childhood than
boys who develop CD in adolescence, suggesting similar predisposing factors to CD,
such as dysfunctional families (Henggeler, Edwards, & Borduin, 1987), cognitive
impairment (Werner, 1987), and high rates of impulsivity and overactivity (Zoccolillo &
Rogers, 1991). Similar to childhood-onset boys, girls with CD have poor outcomes in
adolescence (teenage pregnancies, truancy, school dropouts, suicidality) and adulthood
(arrests, drug use, ASPD, internalizing disorders, somatization)(Zoccolillo & Rogers,
1991; Bardone, Moffitt, & Caspi, 1997, Pajer, 1998). One concept that has proven to be
particularly promising for further understanding severe and persistent antisocial behavior
is psychopathy.
PART II: PSYCHOPATHY

The Construct of Psychopathy
Philippe Pinel, an 18th century French psychiatrist, was one of the first clinicians
to write about a deviant pattern of behavior that he termed insanity without delirium.
He believed this condition to be morally neutral, but that men who displayed a lack or
remorse and no behavioral restraint were distinct from ordinary criminals (Hare, 1993).
After Pinel, many clinicians debated if psychopaths were evil or if they were insane;
however, no writer gained more attention for his efforts than Hervey Cleckley.
In 1941, Cleckley (1941; 1976) published The Mask of Sanity, a now classic book
on psychopathy, in which he defined common characteristics of the psychopath based
upon behaviors and interactions with his patients. He dramatically defined 16 deviant
personality traits and characteristics that include superficial charm, poverty of emotions,
lack of guilt, and lack of insight regarding the impact of ones behavior on others by
citing specific antisocial acts his patients had committed. Cleckley was greatly concerned
10
about this ignored social problem, and he recognized the deleterious impact of
psychopathy on society.
Since publication, The Mask of Sanity has served as the definitive description of
psychopathy, and has greatly influenced the research of antisocial behaviors for the past
25 years. Based upon Cleckleys (1941; 1976) initial descriptions of psychopaths, Hare
and Harpur developed a prominent two factor model of adult psychopathy (Hare et al.,
1991; Harpur, et al., 1989). Factor 1, Emotional Detachment, describes interpersonal and
affective characteristics of psychopathy, while Factor 2, Antisocial Lifestyle, describes
behaviors related to impulsivity, social deviance, and a criminal lifestyle (Hare, 1991).
These factors can be reliably assessed using the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL) and the
updated version, the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R).
The PCL-R is a 20 item self-report questionnaire that measures a variety of
deviant behaviors and personality characteristics on a three point scale. Item related to
Factor 1 on the PCL-R include: glibness-superficial charm, a grandiose sense of selfworth, pathological lying, conning-manipulation, lack or remorse or guilt, shallow affect,
callous-lack of empathy, and failure to accept responsibility for actions, and items
related to Factor 2 are: need for stimulation-proneness to boredom, parasitic lifestyle,
poor behavioral controls, early behavior problems, lack of realistic, long-term goals,
impulsivity, irresponsibility, juvenile delinquency, and revocation of conditional release;
three items, promiscuous sexual behavior, many short-term marital relationships, and
criminal versatility did not load on either factor (Hare et al., 1991). This two factor
structure has been replicated by numerous research groups, and 11 studies have
consistently found that the factors have a correlation of approximately .50 (see Harpur,
11
Hart, & Hare, 2002 for a complete review). More specifically, several studies
investigating psychopathy have found that Factor 1 is positively related to ratings of
narcissism, histrionic personality disorder (HPD), and clinical ratings of psychopathy,
while the same factor is negatively related to empathy and anxiety (Hare, 1991; Hare et
al., 1991; Harpur et al., 1989). In contrast, Factor 2 is more strongly correlated with
criminality and ASPD.
Psychopathy in Women
In general, studies addressing psychopathy in women have supported Cleckleys
anecdotal evidence that women can be psychopaths. Although base rates of psychopathy
in female offenders (11% to 23%) tend to be lower than base rates for male offenders
(15% to 30%), research has supported the use of the PCL-R in female offender samples
(Salekin, Rogers, Ustad, & Sewell, 1998; Lokus, 1995; Tien, Lamb, Bond, Gillstrom, &
Paris, 1993). Inter-rater reliabilities, intraclass correlations, and internal consistencies
have consistently been high (see Vitale & Newman, 1991 for full review), demonstrating
that the PCL-R is a sound measure.
Despite the PCL-Rs adequate psychometric properties for female samples, little
research has addressed the validity of the two factor model of psychopathy in women.
One of the few studies to address the factor structure of psychopathy in incarcerated
women (Salekin, Rogers, & Sewell, 1997) found a two factor structure that broadly
resembled Hare et al.s (1995) two factor structure of adult male psychopathy. An
exploratory factor analysis with female adult offenders found that seven of Hare et al.s
eight items loaded exclusively on Factor 1; however, only four items from the original
12
nine items were unique to Factor 2. A major difference between Hare et al.s two factor
structure and the Salekin et al. two factor structure is that three items (poor behavior
control, lack of realistic goals, and impulsivity) loaded on both factors and an additional
three items (failure to accept responsibility, many-short term relationships, and
revocation of conditional release) failed to load on either factor. In addition, one item
(promiscuous sexual behavior) loaded substantially on Factor 2 for women, while this
item did not load on either factor for men. Thus, Factor 1 is characterized by lack of
empathy/guilt, interpersonal deception, proneness to boredom, and sensation seeking and
Factor 2 is defined by early behavior problems, sexual promiscuity, and antisocial
behavior in adulthood (Salekin et al., 1997). This study should be addressed cautiously
because it was based on a small sample of female offenders (n=103) and failed to
consider race. Nevertheless, this study does suggest that while a two factor model of
psychopathy may be detected in female offender samples, it may have unique, sex
relevant correlates.
Preliminary evidence has emerged to suggest that symptoms of psychopathy in
women are distinct from symptoms of psychopathy in men. Women classified as
psychopaths typically have higher unemployment rates, marital separation and other
relationship difficulties, and dependency on social assistance programs while
psychopathic men tend to have higher rates of unlawful behavior and violent crimes
(Salekin, Rogers, Ustad, & Sewell, 1998). Additionally, female psychopaths have higher
rates of suicide, somatization, and HPD, (Salekin et al., 1998). Studies investigating the
predictive validity of psychopathy have found differing results across sex: for men, high
psychopathy scores are significantly and positively related to reoffending, while, for
13
women, high psychopathy scores did not predict recidivism (Salekin et al., 1998). In
addition, while high scores in men are correlated with resistance to treatment, the
opposite was found with women (Salekin et al., 1997). These findings suggest that men
and women with high psychopathy scores may have some sex dependent behavioral
correlates, but such a conclusion is complicated by uncertainties regarding the construct
validity of psychopathy in women.
Psychopathy in Children
Factor 2 of the PCL-R has two items, "early behavior problems" and "juvenile
delinquency," which suggest that adult psychopaths develop antisocial behaviors prior to
adulthood and that these behaviors begin in childhood and continue into adolescence.
Therefore, personality characteristics of psychopathy may be a useful way to further
identify, classify, and understand children with severe and persistent CD who are most
likely to continue antisocial behaviors as an adult.
Based upon Hare and Harpurs model of adult psychopathy, Frick and colleagues
has proposed a two-factor (Frick et al., 1994) and a three-factor (Frick et al., 2000) model
of childhood psychopathy. The two factors of childhood psychopathy are Impulsive,
Conduct Problems (ICP) and Callous and Unemotional (CU) traits; these factors are
analogous to Hare and Harpurs two-factor model. Based on a clinic-referred sample of
92 children, ten items load prominently on ICP: brags about accomplishments, becomes
angry when corrected, thinks s/he is more important than others, acts without thinking of
the consequences, blames others for own mistakes, teases or makes fun of others, engages
in risky or dangerous activities, engages in illegal activities, does not keep the same
14
friends, and gets bored easily and seven separate items load on CU Traits:
unconcerned about schoolwork, does not feel bad or guilty, emotions seem shallow and
not genuine, does not show feelings or emotions, acts charming in ways that seem
insincere, and is unconcerned about the feelings of others (Frick, 1998). Similar to
findings with adult samples, these factors are moderately correlated (r = .50) (Frick et al.,
1994).
In 2001, Frick (Frick, Bodin, & Barry, 2000) extended their investigation of the
factor structure of psychopathy in a community and clinic-referred sample of adolescents
and found a three-factor structure. Impulsivity and CU Traits factors were again
identified; however, a third factor of Narcissism was also recognized. Examination of
items on each factor revealed that the CU Traits factor remained intact, while ICP divided
to form a Narcissism and an Impulsivity factor. This three-factor structure was also found
when the community sample was divided by sex, and when the factor analyses were
repeated for parent and teacher ratings separately. The three-factor structure was
compared to a two-factor (CU traits, combined Impulsivity and Narcissism) and onefactor model. Results indicated that the one-factor did not fit the data well, but that the
two-factor structure fit significantly better and an acceptable fit was indicated. The threefactor model fit similarly well; however, adding the Narcissism factor did not
significantly fit the model better. Therefore, it appears that the two-factor model of
psychopathy (CU Traits and ICP) is still the best structure of psychopathy in children.
Nevertheless, the three-factor model of psychopathy can be reliably assessed using the
Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD: Frick & Hare, 2001).
15
The APSD, formerly titled the Psychopathy Screening Device (PSD; Frick et al.
1994), is a 20-item behavior rating scale that measures similar personality traits and
behaviors as the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare, 2001). Factor analyses,
conducted using a large community sample (n=1136) and replicated in a clinic-referred
sample (n=160), revealed a three factor structure: Narcissism (seven items), Impulsivity
(five items), and CU Traits (six items). The ASPD has three formats for parents, teachers,
and children. Informants rate items on a three point scale (0=Not at all true, 1=Sometimes
true, 2=Definitely true). The APSD has successfully been used to identify a subset of
children who have high rates of conduct problems and aberrant personality traits (Frick et
al., 2000; Frick et al., 2003; Falkenbach et al., 2003). A comparison of the ASPD, PSD,
and PCL-R is presented in Table 1.
Subsequent studies using the APSD have revealed that children high in CU traits
represent a separate group of children with conduct problems who are distinct from
children with conduct problems who lack CU traits. For example, children high in both
factors of psychopathy have increased levels of sensation seeking (Frick et al., 1994), are
more violent, self-centered, and have decreased interpersonal relationships (Myers,
Burker, & Harris, 1995; Smith, Gacono, & Kaufman, 1997). Substance use is also
significantly correlated with CU traits in incarcerated adolescent males (Mailoux, Forth,
& Kroner, 1997). Adolescent males who engage in antisocial behaviors and have high
levels of CU traits had slower reaction times to negative/aversive words in a lexical
decision task (Loney et al., 2003), which is similar to results found with incarcerated
adults (Williamson, Harpur, & Hare, 1991).
16
Childhood psychopathy, as measured by high levels of CU traits, is strongly

correlated with low levels of anxiety and with high levels of fearlessness (Frick et al.,
1999). The presence of anxiety in children with conduct problems is of importance
because children with conduct problems who have high levels of anxiety are more likely
than non-anxious children to inhibit their behavior in response to environmental cues of
punishment signals (Walker et al., 1991); in contrast, children with behavior problems
who experience low levels of anxiety are more likely to engage in immediately
reinforcing activities, supporting a reward-dominant style of behavior (Fisher & Blair,
1998; OBrien & Frick, 1996). Frick , Lilienfeld, Ellis, Loney, and Silverthorn (1994)
found that measures of trait anxiety were significantly correlated with measures of
conduct problems, but were uncorrelated with CU traits. In contrast, fearlessness was
significantly, though modestly, correlated with CU traits when conduct problems was
controlled for. This suggests that high levels of psychopathy in children is accompanied
by low levels of anxiety which makes it very unlikely that these children will alter their
behavior in response to anticipated punishment, which may further predispose them to
criminality. Although anxiety and CU traits are negatively related in boys, anxiety has
been found to be positively related to the presence of CU traits in girls (Vasey, 2002),
suggesting that girls with CU traits are not identical to boys with CU traits.
CU traits are also uniquely related to proactive, but not reactive, aggression (Frick,
1998; Ugueto & Vasey, 2001). Children who utilize proactive aggression view
aggression as a legitimate and effective way of achieving their goals (Crick & Dodge,
1996). Thus, children who are high in CU traits and low in anxiety, emotional expression,
and the capacity for interpersonal relationships, would rely primarily on proactive
17
aggression, while reactive aggression (retaliatory aggression) is more commonly found in

children with conduct problems who are also emotionally unstable. Thus, children high in
CU traits may represent a very severe type of conduct disorder and may be at risk for the
development of adult psychopathy (Christian et al, 1997).
Psychopathy in Girls
Although there is growing evidence of the construct of psychopathy in identifying
adolescent males with early and persistent CD, and there is preliminary evidence of
psychopathy in prison samples of adult women, few studies have specifically addressed
the factor structure of psychopathy in female adolescents. A close examination of the
studies that have investigated the role of psychopathy in children reveals that relatively
small sample sizes of clinic-refereed or adjudicated girls are included. The majority of
research on psychopathy in children has been based predominantly on boys, girls have
only constituted 11% to 22% of the total sample (Frick, 1998, Frick et al., 1994), or
equivalent samples across sex have been obtained from a community sample (Frick et al.,
1999). Therefore, while psychopathic personality traits can be detected in female samples,
it is still unclear if psychopathy in girls has the same factor structure and behavioral
correlates as psychopathy in males. The few studies that have tested or attempted to test
the validity of the factor structure of psychopathy in children with a mixed sample of
boys and girls are reviewed below.
In 1994, Frick, OBrien, Wootton, and McBurnett created a two-factor (CU traits
and ICP) model of childhood psychopathy based upon a sample of 95 clinic-referred
children; however, this factor structured was modeled and cross-validated on samples
18
which predominantly consisted of Caucasian boys. The first sample of children, used to
establish a factor model, consisted of only 64 children. Eighty-one percent were male,
and 82% of the sample was white. The sample used to replicate the model consisted of
only 28 children, and 89% of this sample was male and 85% of the sample was white.
Although t-tests for sex and race did not reveal significant differences on the two factors,
there may not have been enough variability in the sample of girls or African-Americans
to find differences. Thus, Frick and colleagues created a two-factor model of psychopathy,
based upon small samples of Caucasian boys, that has been widely researched in the
childhood psychopathy literature with boys (i.e., Brandt et al., 1997; Spain et al., 2004).
In 2000, Frick, Bodin, and Barry further investigated the factor structure of
psychopathy in a community and in a clinic-referred sample of children. The community
sample had equivalent groups of boys (47%) and girls (53%), although the sample was
still overwhelmingly Caucasian (77%). As previously discussed, a two-factor (CU Traits,
ICP) and a three-factor (CU traits, Impulsivity, Narcissism) model was detected. Both of
these factor structures were retained when the sample was divided by sex; however, there
were a few notable differences. When only the sample of girls was used to test the model,
there was not a strong distinction between the Narcissism and Impulsivity items.
Additionally, the CU traits factor was isolated as the third factor for girls, even though it
was isolated first in the sample of boys. These analyses were repeated with the clinicreferred sample. This sample consisted of mostly Caucasian (76%) males (77%). As with
the community sample, a two and three-factor model of psychopathy was observed.
However, due to the limited sample of girls, factor analyses could not be conducted by
19
sex. As a result, it is unclear what factor structure best fits a sample of clinic-referred
girls. Therefore, to date, little is known about the factor structure of psychopathy in girls.
Two studies published in 2003 attempted to establish the validity of the two-factor
structure of psychopathy in adolescents. The first study, conducted by Falkenbach,
Polythress, and Heide included 69 juveniles in the justice system, with 40% of the sample
being female. Unfortunately, the small sample size prohibited the use of factor analysis,
and no analyses were conducted by sex or race. Results indicated that the ASPD had
acceptable total internal consistency scores for both parent (=.84) and child (=.82)
reports. However, only the ICP parent-version scale had a satisfactory alpha (.72). These
results suggest that the factors of the ASPD may not be as reliable in a small, juvenile
justice sample as they are in community and clinic-referred samples (Frick & Hare, 2001).
Another study (Vincent, Vitacco, Grisso, & Corrado, 2003), attempted to identify
subtypes of offenders based upon the youth version of the PCL (Psychopathy Checklist:
Youth Version; Forth, unpublished). Although this sample consisted of 441 adolescents
(115 females), all girls were excluded from analysis due to the limited evidence for the
validity of the PCL:YV in girls. (Vincent et al., 2003). This quote highlights the lack of
knowledge researchers have regarding the structure of psychopathy in girls, and
emphasizes that the majority of work on psychopathy is being conducted with samples of
adolescent males.
20
PART III: CURRENT STUDY

Study Description
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the two-factor model of
psychopathy is invariant across sex and to identify behavioral correlates of psychopathy
that are either common to both sexes or unique to each. Thus, the major goals of this
study are threefold: (1) To investigate whether the two-factor structure (CU Traits and
ICP) of psychopathy can be reliably assessed using a new assessment instrument with a
juvenile justice sample of boys; (2) To investigate whether the two-factor structure of
psychopathy can be replicated in girls; and (3) To identify sex specific correlates of each
factor. Unlike previous studies, the current study is comprised of over 1700 adolescents
with a large sample of girls (n=736) which will provide sufficient power to utilize factor
analysis in the construct validation of psychopathy and to test the relations of these
constructs to others.
This study will use selected items from the Global Risk Assessment Device
(GRAD: Gavazzi, Slade, Buettner, Partridge, Yarcheck, & Andrews, 2003) in order to
build a factor structure of psychopathy. The GRAD is a 132-item web-based assessment
tool used in the juvenile justice system to help make recommendations and referrals
based on information regarding risk factors.
Study Hypotheses
1. Based on a review of GRAD items, it was hypothesized that two factors that
broadly resemble CU traits and Impulsive-Conduct Problems will be identified.
These factors are expected to be correlated approximately r = .50. Furthermore, it
21
is expected that items that load on each factor will conceptually resemble items
that load on the corresponding factor of the APSD.
2. It was further expected that the factor structure obtained using GRAD items
would cross-validate in a second sample of boys.
3. The same factor structure that was modeled and cross-validated on the two
samples of boys was hypothesized to replicate in a sample of girls.
4. However, it was anticipated that there will be differing behavioral correlates for
CU traits among boys and girls. More specifically, sexual promiscuity was
expected to be more strongly related to CU traits in girls, and aggression was
expected to be more strongly associated with CU traits in boys. Symptoms of
anxiety were expected to be inversely related to CU traits for boys; however, for
girls, it was hypothesized that CU traits would be positively related to anxiety.
22
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY
Participants
Participants in this study included children and adolescents in the juvenile justice
system from three counties in Ohio: Cuyahoga, Franklin, and Licking. Juveniles
completed the GRAD upon entering the juvenile justice system through court, detention,
or probation services. Court Services include all legal and clerking services necessary for
the court to function effectively. Probation Services provides pre-dispositional social
histories to assist in determining appropriate dispositions for youth and their families in
addition to post-dispositional probation case management services to youth on probation.
Detention Services provide services ranging from secure detention (lock-up) to home
detention (release to parental/guardian custody pending court action) to evening reporting
for all youth who have been arrested or remanded (court-ordered). Intake/Diversion
services were also utilized. Additionally, the Unruly Respite Care Program (URCP) was
designed for repeat offenders who do not need secure detention and are not agreeable to
dispositional alternatives.
Cuyahoga County - Cleveland, OH

The Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court is Ohios largest juvenile court, serving
over 30,000 cases annually. The sample consisted of 1019 consecutive cases of juvenile
23
offenders from Cuyahoga County. The sample was 57% male (67.7% African-American,
32.4% Caucasian) and 43% female (69.7% African-American, 22.6% Caucasian). Ages
for boys ranged from six to 19 years, with a mean age of 15 years; 12 boys were 11 years
old or younger. Ages for girls ranged from 11 to 19 years, with a mean age of 15 years;
two girls were 11 years old.
Information regarding family/household composition and socio-economic status
was not collected for this study; however, the following information was recorded in a
previous study (Gavazzi et al., 2003) conducted within the Cuyahoga Juvenile Justice
System. The predominant household composition was single-parent mother headed
(54%), followed by married parents (15%), stepfamily (8%), grandparent-headed (7%),
single-parent father headed (5%), and other (11%). Forty-four percent of the sample (n =
177) was below the poverty line, 23% (n = 93) reported a family income between
$15,000-$24,999, and the remaining 33% (n = 129) reported a family income of $25,000
or above.
Franklin County Columbus, OH

Franklin County court services are currently using the GRAD in probation, presentence investigation, and intake/diversion. The sample consisted of 247 consecutive
cases of juvenile offenders from Franklin County. The sample is 60% male (60.1%
Caucasian, 35.8% African-American) and 40% female (54.5% Caucasian, 41.4%
African-American). Ages for boys ranged from eight to 18, with a mean age of 15 years;
seven children were 11 years old or younger. Ages for girls ranged from 10 to 18, with a
mean age of 15 years; four girls were 10 and 11 years old.
24
Licking County Newark, OH

Licking county court services is currently only using the GRAD for diversion
purposes. Unlike the two other counties, Licking contains a mixture of small urban and
rural communities. The sample consisted of 482 consecutive cases of juvenile offenders
from Licking County. The sample is 60% male (90.6% Caucasian, 5.2% AfricanAmerican) and 40% female (96.4% Caucasian, 1.5% African-American). Ages for boys
ranged from nine to 18 years, with a mean age of 15 years; 20 boys were nine, 10, and 11
years old. Ages for girls ranged from 11 to 18 years, with a mean age of 15 years; 12 girls
were 11 years old.
Randomization of Sample
The entire combined sample consisted of 1748 children, 1012 boys and 736 girls.
To arrive at the sub-samples, each subject was assigned a random number. The random
numbers were then rank ordered, and the boys were divided into two equal groups. The
first half of boys (n=506; Boys - Sample 1) was used as the sample for the exploratory
factor analysis (EFA), and the second half of boys (n=506; Boys - Sample 2) was used as
the sample for the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Then, the same factor structure
that was generated by the EFA was cross-validated with the entire sample of girls (n=736)
using CFA.
Measures
The Global Risk Assessment Device is a web-based assessment tool developed by
Dr. Gavazzi and colleagues at The Ohio State University for the assessment of
25
adolescents in the juvenile justice system (Gavazzi et al., 2003). The GRAD was
developed to assist juvenile justice professionals in making recommendations and
referrals based on valid information regarding risk factors across a variety of domains
(Gavazzi, Novak, Yarcheck & DiSefano, in press). The GRAD contains 132 items that
assess 11 domains of functioning: Prior Offenses (5 items), Family/Parenting (16 items),
Education/Vocation (12 items), Peers/Significant Relationships (13 items), Substance
Use/Abuse (14 items), Leisure (5 items), Personality/Behavior (24 items), Trauma (12
items), Accountability (7 items), and Health Services (9 items). Individual GRAD items
are listed in Table 2. The GRAD takes approximately 25 minutes to complete and has
parent and youth versions to improve reliability and validity. In addition, the GRAD
features an automatic scoring system. Response choices are based on a three-point scale
in which 0 is no/never, 1 is yes/a couple of times, and 2 is yes/a lot.
Cronbachs alpha coefficients ranged from .87 (Prior Offenses) to .97
(Family/Parenting), indicating strong internal reliabilities for each scale. The GRAD
items were then subjected to confirmatory factor analysis using maximum likelihood
estimates, so that items for each scale were hypothesized to load on the same factor. A
RMSEA of .07 was obtained, suggesting reasonable model fit.
Specific domains of the GRAD have also demonstrated strong concurrent validity
with exisiting measures with established psychometric properties (Gavazzi & Lim, 2003):
the Family/Parenting (GRAD) domain was significantly correlated with the Unpleasant
Family Events Scale (r = .39, p < .02), the Substance Use/Abuse (GRAD) domain was
strongly associated with the Youth Risk Behavior Survey items indicating lifetime use of
alcohol (r = .40, p < .02), marijuana (r = .66, p < .001), and cocaine (r = .32, p < .05),
26
and the Personality/Behavior (GRAD) domain was highly related to the Breif Symptom
Inventory (r = .35, p < .03).
Procedure
All juveniles, regardless of offense, completed the GRAD upon entry into the
juvenile justice system. No personal information, such as name, social security number,
address, or phone number, was collected. Instead, each subject was assigned a subject
number. There were no informed consent procedures since completion of the GRAD is
compulsory; all GRAD studies have received an exemption from the Human Risks
Department of the Institutional Review Board.
Analytic Strategy
In order to test the factor structure of psychopathy in boys and girls, several steps
were employed. First, a set of variables from the GRAD was selected and entered into the
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). Then, factors were created based on item loadings
and results of significance tests. After a factor structure was derived through EFA, this
factor structure was cross-validated, using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), with the
second sample of boys. Finally, the same factor structure was tested (CFA) with the
sample of girls.
Item Selection and Reduction

Seventy-five variables (Table 3) were selected from the GRAD based upon their
similarity to items on the APSD (Frick & Hare, 2001) and the DSM-IV criteria for CD,
27
ODD, ASPD, HPD, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and Borderline Personality

Disorder. These items were selected in order to capture Fricks two factor theory of
childhood psychopathy (Frick et al., 1994), to identify behavioral correlates that may be
related to either factor (CU traits or ICP), and to further discover additional behaviors
that may be uniquely related to boys or girls. Of these 75 items, two items, Money in
exchange for sex and Trades sex for drugs, were eliminated because these items
occurred in only 2.8% and 0.8% of the entire sample, respectively; thus, violating the
necessary assumption of a multivariate normal distribution (Browne & MacCallum,
2003 ). Additionally, 11 items (Table 4) were also discarded from the item pool because
these items loaded on multiple factors, regardless of factor structure. Floyd and Widaman
(1995) recommend removing items that load on two or more factors equally, and
recomputing the factor analysis in order to develop very clean loading patterns. Thus,
the final item set used for the EFA and CFA consisted of 48 variables (Table 5).
Exploratory Factor Analysis

Exploratory Factor Analysis is commonly used by researchers to identify a set of
latent constructs that underlie a set of measured (manifest) variables. The goal of EFA is
to explain the structure of correlations among manifest variables by approximating the
pattern of relations between the common factors and each of the measured variables, as
calculated by each items factor loadings (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan,
1999). EFA analyses performed were conducted using the statistical computer program
CEFA (Comprehensive Exploratory Factor Analysis: as described in Browne &
MacCallum, ); CEFA is a Windows 95/98 program that can generate factor loadings,
28
rotate a factor matrix using oblique or orthogonal methods, and calculate standard errors
and eigenvalues of rotated factor loadings and correlation matrices.
With regard to a model-fitting procedure, factors were extracted using the
Maximum Wishart Likelihood (MWL) method. MWL is more advantageous than other
extraction techniques (i.e., principle factors, Ordinary Least Squares) because it allows
the researcher to compute a goodness of fit index, in addition to computing statistical
significance testing and confidence intervals for parameters. Based upon the
recommendations of Browne and Cudeck (1989), the numbers of factors in the model
was determined by reviewing the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)
index fit. RMSEA is a measure of discrepancy per degree of freedom for the model; a
value less than .05 indicates close fit, a value between .05 and .08 indicates reasonable fit,
and values greater than .08 indicate mediocre and unacceptable fit (Browne & Cudeck,
1992). An oblique rotation (Varimax) was utilized since oblique rotations allow factors to
be correlated or uncorrelated thereby providing a more accurate illustration of how
factors are related to one another (Fabringer et al., 1999).
Item Analysis
Based upon the obtained factor structure, item analyses were performed for each
resulting factor in order to retain items with meaningful factor loadings. According to
Floyd and Widaman (1995), factor loadings of items are considered meaningful when
they exceed .30 or .40. Therefore, only items with a primary factor loading of .35, and
with additional factor loadings less than .25, were retained; thus creating cleaner and
simpler factors.
29
Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is typically used to confirm a priori
hypotheses that are generated from an EFA or the existing literature. The major goal of
CFA is to explicitly define a hypothesis and test that hypothesis for its fit with the
observed covariance structure of the measured (manifest) variables, thereby assessing the
construct validity of a measure (Floyd & Widaman, 1995). This is done by specifying the
precise number of factors and the precise pattern of zero and nonzero loadings of the
manifest variables on the identified factors (Fabrigar et al., 1999). CFA were conducted
using the statistical computer program RAMONA (see Browne & MacCallum, 2000) via
the statistical software SYSTAT. RAMONA is a MS-DOS program that can fit more
general structural equation models solely for the use of CFA; RAMONA also provides
estimates of free parameters, confidence intervals, standard errors, and tests of overall
goodness of fit. The hypothesized factor structure utilized in CFA was obtained from the
EFA conducted with half of the total sample of boys. These a priori hypotheses were used
to specify the exact number of factors in addition to the exact position of zero and
nonzero loadings. A correlation matrix based on 48 manifest variables was created using
the data from the second sample of boys. This matrix was provided in the CFA, and the
MWL method of factor extraction was used to analyze the correlation matrix. An oblique
rotation was also employed, as factors are expected to be highly correlated with one
another. Lastly, the RMSEA index fit was used as an overall test of model fit.
In order to test the limits of the model, four steps were followed: (1) all
parameters were left free to vary, (2) factor correlations and item loadings were specified
30
(based on the results of the EFA), (3) factor correlations were constrained, although item
loadings were allowed to vary, and (4) factor correlations were free to vary, while item
loadings were constrained.
Once the best model for the sample of boys had been determined, the same steps
were repeated with the sample of girls to see if the overall model was independent of sex.
31
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics:
Descriptive information regarding the means, standard deviations, and minimum
and maximum values for each item for boys and girls are provided in Tables 6-8.
Correlation matrices for each sample are provided in Tables 9-10.
Exploratory Factor Analyses

An Exploratory Factor Analysis was performed on 506 boys, half of the total
sample of boys (Boys, Sample 1). A Varimax oblique rotation using Maximum Wishart
Likelihood (MWL) was conducted to find a rotated factor matrix that best fit the data and
that best matched the two-factor model of childhood psychopathy (Frick et al., 1994).
The goodness of model fit for each factor solution was determined by reviewing the Root
Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) index fit.
In determining the number of factors in the model, two factors, for CU traits and
ICP, were entered into the model. However, this attempt did not produce a significant
RMSEA; therefore, the number of factors was increased by one until significant test
statistics occurred. Significant results were obtained for six through 10 factor solutions;
the RMSEA values of the various factor solutions are presented in Table 11. Not all 48
32
variables were expected to load substantially on factors reflecting CU traits and ICP, as
the majority of items were not designed to capture either of these constructs.
The resulting factor structure that best fit the data was a nine-factor solution. The
RMSEA was .04, which indicates close model fit. The retained nine-factor solution was
labeled: (1) School Problems, (2) Sexuality, (3) Employment, (4) CU Traits, (5) ParentChild Conflict, (6) Victimization, (7) Internalizing Symptoms, (8) Narcissism, and (9)
Aggression. Factor correlations and corresponding item loadings are presented in Table
12 and Table 13, respectively.
Reliabilities
Internal Consistency
Cronbachs alpha was computed for each factor to measure the degree of item
relatedness. Alphas ranged from .89 (CU Traits) to .69 (Victimization). All factors
yielded good to acceptable reliabilities (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1970). Additionally,
Cronbachs alpha was also measured to see if deletion of an item would improve overall
internal consistency. A review of item-total statistics did not reveal any items that should
be deleted to improve internal consistency of each factor. Results for each factor are
presented in Table 14 for Boys Sample 1.
Factor Correlations
A correlation matrix for the nine factors was also created to determine the relation
of each factor to the other factors. The nine-factors were replicated in the raw data by
33
creating nine scales. These scales were then correlated with one another to find
significant relations. All nine factors were significantly (r = .01), and positively related to
each other, with the exception that the Employment factor was not correlated to the
Sexuality factor or the Victimization factor. Results of the correlation are presented in
Table 15 for Boys Sample 1.
Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Data from two samples (Boys - Sample 2 and Girls) were used to conduct two
separate CFAs. Based on the nine-factor model derived from the EFA, a variety of CFAs
were performed on the second sample of boys and the entire sample of girls. In the first
analysis, all parameters were free to vary, which is the most liberal test of model fit. Next,
all factor correlations and item loadings were specified based on the results of the EFA,
which is the most conservative and stringent test of model fit. Then, factor correlations
were free to vary, while item loadings were constrained. Lastly, factor correlations were
constrained, and item loadings were allowed to vary, which is the most liberal test in
which a parameter is specified. Factor reliabilities and factor-scale correlations are
reviewed. Results obtained from the Boys, Sample 2 will be reviewed first, followed by
results for Girls.
Boys - Sample 2
A CFA was performed using 506 boys in order to determine if the nine-factor
solution, obtained from the EFA with Boys Sample 1, would replicate in the second
34
sample of boys. When both factor correlations and item loading on each factor were
allowed to vary freely, the overall model fit was reasonable (RMSEA Point Estimate =
0.059). However, when correlations among factors and item loadings for each factor were
constrained to values produced by the EFA, the goodness of fit of the model deteriorated.
The RMSEA point estimate value increased to 0.126, indicating poor fit. When only item
loadings for each factor were specified, but factor correlations were not, the model fit
(RMSEA Point Estimate = 0.077) was reasonable. Similarly, when item loadings were
allowed to vary, but correlations among factors were constrained, the model again
achieved reasonable fit (RMSEA Point Estimate = 0.063). Results are presented in Table
16.
The results of the four CFAs were then compared to see if the fully constrained
model fits significantly worse than the three less constrained models. Nested models were
tested by computing the difference between the chi-square test statistics and the degrees
of freedom for the two models. Results suggest that all four models were significantly
different from one another, and that as the degree of model specificity was decreased, the
degree of model fit increased. Results are presented in Table 17.
Lastly, in an effort to better understand the source of the reduction in fit when
elements of the unconstrained model were specified, specific item loadings were allowed
to vary freely in the fully specified model to determine which variables were contributing
to mediocre or poor model fit. Since the correlation specified model fit (RMSEA = 0.63)
was nearly identical to the unspecified model fit (RMSEA = .059), correlations were not
allowed to vary freely in the model. The order in which variables were allowed to vary
within the fully specified model was determined by subtracting the item loading when the
35
entire model was free to vary from the item loading that was obtained from the EFA, and
subsequently entered in to the fully constrained model. These differences were then
grouped together to form three groups (Table 18): differences greater than .3 (two item
loadings), differences greater than .2 (four item loadings), and differences greater than .1
(14 item loadings). When the fully specified model was further specified to allow item
loadings with a .3 or greater difference to be free, the model fit (RMSEA = 0.067)
improved significantly, and the model achieved a reasonable fit. However, when item
loadings or factor correlations with a .3 or greater difference were allowed to vary in the
model, the model fit (RMSEA = 0.063) again improved. A reasonable model fit was also
achieved when item loadings with a .2 or greater difference (RMSEA = 0.066) or a .1 or
greater difference (RMSEA = 0.064). Results of the RMSEA are presented in Table 19.
Thus, when the item loadings Tries to get even and Difficulty keeping a job, were
allowed to vary freely in the fully specified model, the model achieved reasonable fit.
Reliabilities
relatedness. Alphas ranged from .87 (CU Traits) to .59 (Victimization). All factors, other
than Victimization, yielded good to moderate reliabilities. Cronbachs alpha was also
measured to see if deletion of an item would improve overall internal consistency. Closer
examination of individual items revealed that the Parent-Child Conflict factor would have
improved reliability (.775 vs. .762) if the item Poor mother relationship was deleted.
36
Similarly, the Victimization factor would have marginally higher internal consistency
(.593 vs. .587) if the item Victim of a crime was omitted; however, even with the
deletion of this item from the scale, the overall reliability of this factor is still poor.
Results are presented in Table 20.
Factor Correlations
of each factor to the other factors. All nine factors were significantly ( = .01) related to
each other, with the exception that the Employment factor was not related to the
Aggression factor or to the Narcissism factor (Table 21).
Girls
A CFA was performed using 736 girls in order to determine if the nine-factor
solution, obtained from the EFA with Boys Sample 1, would replicate with a sample of
girls. When both factor correlations and item loading on each factor were free to vary, the
model fit reasonably well (RMSEA Point Estimate = 0.054). But, the model fit
deteriorated when correlations among factors and item loadings for each factor were
constrained to values produced by the EFA. The RMSEA point estimate value increased
to 0.087, indicating mediocre, but not poor, fit. When only item loadings for each factor
were specified, but factor correlations were free to vary, the model fit (RMSEA Point
Estimate = 0.082) was again mediocre. However, when item loadings were free to vary,
37
and correlations among factors were fixed, the model again achieved reasonable fit
(RMSEA Point Estimate = 0.058). Results are presented in Table 22.
The results of the four CFAs were then compared to see if the models were nested,
thereby determining if the fully constrained model fits significantly worse than the three
less constrained models. Results suggest that all four models are significantly different,
and that as the degree of model specificity is decreased, the degree of model fit increases.
Results are presented in Table 23.
Lastly, specific item loadings were allowed to vary freely in the fully specified
model to determine which variables were contributing to mediocre of poor model fit. The
order in which variables were allowed to vary within the fully specified model was
determined in the same manner as the boys. Item loadings and factor correlation
differences were grouped together to form three groups (Table 24): differences greater
than.3 (one item loadings), differences greater than .2 (nine item loadings), and
differences greater than .1 (12 item loadings). When the fully specified model was further
specified to allow item loadings or factor correlations with a .3 or greater difference to be
free, the model fit (RMSEA = 0.064) improved dramatically, and a reasonable fit was
achieved. A similar model fit (RMSEA = 0.061) was achieved when item loadings with
a .2 or greater difference were allowed to vary in the model. A near close model fit was
achieved when item loadings with .1 or greater difference (RMSEA = 0.059) were
allowed to vary in the model. Results of the RMSEA are presented in Table 25. Thus,
when the item loading Difficulty keeping a job was allowed to vary, the model
achieved reasonable fit.
38
Reliabilities
relatedness. Alphas ranged from .84(CU Traits) to .69 (Employment). All factors yielded
good to moderate reliabilities. Cronbachs alpha was also measured to see if deletion of
an item would improve overall internal consistency. A review of item-total statistics did
not reveal any items that should be deleted in order to improve internal consistency of
each factor. Results are presented in Table 26.
Factor Correlations
of each factor to the other factors. All factors were significantly, positively correlated
with each other (Table 27).
Comparison of Correlation Strength

Although the correlations between CU Traits - Sexuality and CU Traits Aggression were positively related for both boys and girls, a comparison of the strength
of the relation for boys and girls revealed that the CU Traits Sexuality correlation was
significantly stronger for girls than boys(p 0.00112). When the correlation between CU
traits and aggression was compared for boys and girls, no significant differences were
found (p 0.255).
39
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the two-factor model of
psychopathy is invariant across sex and to identify behavioral correlates of psychopathy
that are unique to each sex. Several hypotheses were generated at the onset of this study.
Each hypothesis is reviewed, results are presented briefly, and possible explanations are
discussed. In addition, limitations of this study and implications of the findings are also
reviewed.
Review of Study Hypotheses

Study Hypothesis 1: It is hypothesized that two factors that broadly resemble CU traits
and Impulsive-Conduct Problems will be identified. These factors are expected to be
correlated approximately r = .50. Furthermore, it is expected that items that load on
each factor will conceptually resemble items that load on the CU Traits and the ICP
factors.
Using exploratory factor analysis, a nine-factor solution was obtained based on
the data (48 variables) of 506 boys (Boys Sample 1). The nine factors were: School
Problems, Sexuality, Employment, CU Traits, Parent-Child Conflict, Victimization,
Internalizing Symptoms, Narcissism, and Aggression. As described, a factor of CU traits
40
was identified, but no factor broadly resembled Impulsive Conduct Problems. Therefore,
no correlation could be measured between these constructs. The lack of an ICP factor
may be a result of so many behaviors being measured; instead of obtaining one broad
conduct problems factor, seven specific behavior problems were identified.
On closer examination of items that comprise the ICP scale (Frick et al., 1994), it
is not surprising that this factor did not emerge. Six items from the GRAD were similar to
items on the ICP scale. Table 1 compares GRAD items to items on Fricks two-factor
model of psychopathy (Frick et al., 1994). Of these six items, two items (Inflated sense
of abilities and Excessive sense of self-worth) loaded on the Narcissism factor, and
four items (Blames others for own mistakes, Cruel and bullies, Engages in
dangerous physical activities, and Gets bored easily) had low loadings on more than
one factor and were discarded from the final item pool. As a result, no factor capturing
Impulsivity or Conduct Problems emerged.
It is also important to remember that all of the adolescents in this sample had been
identified by law enforcement as engaging in antisocial behaviors. Therefore, the ICP
item Engages in illegal activities was not included in the analyses because all of the
participants were presumably engaged in some type of illegal activity or else they would
not have been identified.
Although no ICP factor was identified, a Narcissism factor was detected. This is
consistent with previous research (Frick et al., 2000) that found a CU traits factor and a
Narcissism factor (in combination with an Impulsivity factor) in a community and clinicreferred sample of boys. The authors concluded that the isolation of a Narcissism factor
was consistent with adult research (Harpur et al., 1989), which has found that items
41
measuring narcissism are more closely related to CU traits in adults. The authors also
noted that the Impulsivity factor was the least stable and least cohesive factor for both
samples, suggesting that items on the ICP factor (Frick et al., 1994) did not sufficiently
describe the construct.
Study Hypothesis 2: It is further expected that the factor structure obtained using GRAD
items will cross-validate in a second sample of boys.
Consistent with the hypothesis, the nine-factor solution was replicated in a second
sample of boys; however, when the model was specified for both factor correlations and
item loadings, the model fit deteriorated. These results were not expected since the
second sample of boys was randomly selected from the entire sample of boys, and should
be equivalent to the first sample. T-tests for all 48 variables plus age and race were
conducted to see if the two samples of boys were equivalent. Results indicate that out of
50 variables there was a significant difference between the two groups on 12 variables.
The entire sample of boys was then re-randomized twice to see if there were still
significant differences between the groups. The second randomization produced
difference on nine variables, and a third attempt at randomization produced differences
on 13 variables. The most likely reason that the groups were not equivalent on all
variables is that, due to the large sample size, there is too much power and trivial
differences are being detected. Another reason may be that it is nearly impossible to
randomize so many variables, especially when a number of items were endorsed by less
than 25% of the sample.
42
Comparisons of item loadings between the EFA and the CFA when all parameters
were free to vary were conducted to identify discrepancies. Discrepancies in fit ranged
from less than 0.4 to nearly 0. When item loadings that were the most discrepant (0.3 or
higher) were allowed to vary in the model, in which all other variables were specified, the
CFA model fit improve significantly; a reasonable model fit was achieved. Thus, when
two items loadings was not specified and allowed to vary within the model, the model
replicated in a second sample of boys. This suggests that the nine-factor solution is an
appropriate model of the data and can be replicated, when key variables are allowed to
vary within the model.
Another reason that the sample did not replicate at both the item and factor levels
is that the Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) for the original nine-factor structure
was too large (ECVI = 4.62). The ECVI is a measure of how well the factor structure
obtained in the EFA will generalize to another sample; the smaller the ECVI, the more
likely the model is to cross-validate in another sample (Cudeck & Henley, 1991; Browne
& Cudeck, 1992). Factor structures with an ECVI of 0.9 or smaller are likely to replicate
in another sample (Cudeck & Henley, 1991; Browne & Cudeck, 1992). Thus, even
though the nine-factor solution obtained from the EFA had reasonable fit, the poor model
replication suggests that the exact model specified by the EFA is unlikely to replicate in
another sample.
Study Hypothesis 3: The same factor structure that was modeled and cross-validated on
the two samples of boys was hypothesized to replicate in a sample of girls.
43
As anticipated, the nine-factor model replicated in the sample of girls; however, it

was only reproduced when all parameters were free to vary, or when only correlations
among the nine factors were specified. These results are similar to the results obtained
from the CFA with the sample of boys, and also suggest that a reasonable model fit
occurs only when key variables are allowed to vary. As with the boys, when items and
loadings with a 0.3 or higher discrepancy were allowed to vary in the specified model,
the model fit improved significantly and a reasonable fit was achieved. Thus, when one
item loading was not specified and was allowed to vary within the model, the model
replicated in the sample of girls. This suggests that the nine-factor solution is an
appropriate model of the data and can be replicated, when only one problematic variable
is allowed to vary within the model. Additionally, since virtually the same results were
obtained in the validation samples of boys and girls, the model fit in the girls sample is
not attributable to sex differences.
Results of the internal consistency for each factor suggest that the nine-factors
identified (except Employment) are more cohesive in the girls sample than they are in
the second sample of boys (Tables 26 and 20).
Study Hypothesis 4: It is anticipated that there will be differing behavioral correlates for
CU traits for boys and girls. More specifically, sexual promiscuity is expected to be more
strongly related to CU traits in girls, and aggression is expected to be more strongly
associated with boys. Symptoms of anxiety are expected to be inversely related to CU
traits for boys, but directly related to each other for girls.
44
In contrast to expectation, no unique, sex specific behavioral correlates were

found for CU traits. Sexual promiscuity, aggression, and anxiety as measured by the
Sexuality, Aggression, and Internalizing Symptoms factors were all significantly (=.01)
and positively related to CU traits in samples of girls and boys (Tables 27 and 21).
The Sexuality factor was positively correlated to CU Traits for both boys and girls;
however, the correlation for girls is significantly stronger than the correlation for boys
(p 0.00112). This result suggests that adolescents, especially girls, who have been
arrested for antisocial behavior are likely to engage in risky sexual behavior.
The Aggression factor was also related to CU traits in both samples. When the
correlation between CU traits and aggression was compared for boys and girls, no
significant differences were found (p 0.255). This is consistent with previous findings
that boys high in CU traits are likely to engage in proactive aggression (Frick, 1998).
Since little research has been conducted with girls who are high in CU traits, it is not
problematic that girls in this sample with high levels of CU traits also engaged in
aggressive behavior. In fact, given that this is an adjudicated sample of girls, who are
significantly more deviant than a community or clinic-referred sample of girls, it should
be expected that they would engage in severely antisocial behavior.
The Internalizing Symptoms factor was positively related to CU traits for both
boys and girls. This is consistent with previous research that has demonstrated a positive
relation between CU traits and anxiety for girls, but it is inconsistent with prior research
with boys. One reason that this relation may have been found in boys is that the
Internalizing Symptoms factor represents a variety of behavioral symptoms of anxiety
and depression; it is not a measure of pure trait anxiety. Therefore, the presence of
45
internalizing symptoms may have manifested because the juvenile had been arrested and
was entering the juvenile justice system; thereby reflecting state, not trait, anxiety. Frick
has found that even psychopathic individuals can experience negative affect when they
have been caught and punished for an offense (Frick et al., 1999). Moreover, he and
colleagues have theorized that fearlessness, not high levels of negative affect, which is a
true characteristic of psychopathy. An additional reason for the positive relation between
CU traits and Internalizing symptoms in boys is that the various types of conduct
problems (i.e., Sexuality, School Problems, Aggression) may be acting as a suppressor of
the relation. Frick and colleagues have found that anxiety and CU traits were only related
when ICP were controlled for, suggesting that ICP may suppress the relation between
anxiety and CU traits (Frick et al., 1999).
As expected, Internalizing Symptoms was positively related to CU traits in girls.
This is consistent with research that has demonstrated that antisocial girls are more likely
to experience internalizing symptoms, like anxiety and depression, as adults compared to
antisocial boys (Robbins, 1986; Zoccolillo, 1992).
Limitations
Although this study suggests that CU traits and Narcissism are separate and
distinct constructs that can be observed in samples of boys and girls with severe
antisocial behaviors, this study should be evaluated in the context of the methodological
issues it faces.
First, a major limitation of this study is that it did not use the Antisocial Process
Screening Device (Frick & Hare, 2001), which is the most widely used tool to measure
46
psychopathy in children and adolescents. Therefore, it is unclear if the two-factor

structure of psychopathy (Frick et al., 1994) would have been produced in the first
sample of boys, and replicated at the factor and item level in the second sample of boys
and the sample of girls. Thus, the mediocre model fit (based upon RMSEA estimate and
the ECVI) obtained in the CFA may have occurred because the GRAD items did not
accurately capture all items on the ASPD. In order to test if the two-factor model of
psychopathy is invariant across sex, the model should be tested on a large sample of girls.
Second, in contrast to the Frick study that used clinic-referred children, this
sample consisted solely of children and adolescents in the juvenile justice system. This
extremely deviant sample may not have enough variability to adequately capture the
true factor structure of psychopathy. Future studies should include samples of
community, clinic-referred, and adjudicated youth to investigate if there is a factor
structure of psychopathy that has good fit in all three samples.
Third, this sample was ethnically mixed; 51% of participants were Caucasian and
44% were African-American. The two studies conducted by Frick and colleagues that
tested the factor structure of psychopathy were modeled on samples that were largely
Caucasian. Therefore, the nine-factor model may be a function of race. Unfortunatly, the
overall sample used in this study was not large enough to divide by race, or by sex and
race. Therefore, future studies should include equivalent numbers of Caucasians and
African-Americans when testing the validity of the two-factor structure.
Lastly, one reason that the factor structure may not have replicated in the second
sample of boys is due to poor randomization, due to the large numbers of variables
included in the CFA. In order to test the generalizability of a model, it is important that
47
poor model fit be due to the model and can not be attributable to differences in the
sample. Future studies can correct this problem by including very large sample sizes,
thereby assuring that the two groups will be equivalent.
Future Directions
This study demonstrated that the construct of psychopathy, as measured by CU
traits, can be detected in both samples of boys and girls. Moreover, no sex specific
behavioral correlates were found: internalizing symptoms, sexuality, aggression,
victimization, narcissism, parent-child conflict, and school problems were all positively
related to CU traits in samples of boys and girls, suggesting that psychopathy may be
more similar in boys and girls than previously suspected. Although a substantial
proportion of the sample were African America, the overall sample size was not large
enough to examine factor structure differences between African American and
Caucasians or between African American girls and Caucasian girls, and African
American boys and Caucasian boys. Future studies should specifically address the factor
structure of psychopathy in African-Americans. Furthermore, factor studies should also
begin addressing differences in factor structure between differing socio-economic groups
as well as different ages (adolescence versus childhood).
Additionally, this study proved that the GRAD is capable of detecting
psychopathy, by measuring CU traits. CU traits are an important aspect of the GRAD
because individuals who score high on measures of psychopathy are disproportionably
represented in criminal activity, especially violent crime, and the justice system (Hare,
2003). Future studies addressing CU traits with the GRAD should further examine the
48
factor structure of psychopathy by race, SES, age of onset, and type of offense (overt,
covert; aggressive, non-aggressive). Psychopathy has also proved a useful predictor of
future violence and recidivism, even after controlling for conduct problems, age at first
offense, and a history of violent and nonviolent offending (Gretton, Hare, & Catchpole,
2004). Thus, the CU traits scale of the GRAD may also be useful in predicting recidivism
rates and in identifying violent offenders.
By identifying children and adolescents in the juvenile justice system who
endorse numerous CU traits, juvenile justice professionals will be better informed to
make appropriate referrals and recommendations. However, professionals and researchers
should be cautious in labeling children and adolescents as "psychopaths," as research in
adolescent psychopathy (and research using the GRAD as an assessment measure of
psychopathy) is still in the early stages (Seagrave & Grisso, 2002). Moreover, juvenile
justice professionals should continue to provide appropriate intervention services because
the personality characteristics of adolescents are less stable, and adolescents are more
likely to positively benefit from intervention efforts than their adult counterparts (Gretton
et al., 2004).
General Conclusions
The present study investigated the validity of the two-factor (CU Traits and ICP)
model of psychopathy in a juvenile justice sample of adolescent girls. Forty-eight
variables were selected from the GRAD (Gavazzi et al., 2003 ) and factor analyzed in an
adjudicated sample of boys; a nine-factor model (CU traits, School Problems, Aggression,
Employment, Internalizing Symptoms, Narcissism, Parent-Child Conflict, Sexuality,
49
Victimization) emerged. Although an ICP factor was not identified, a CU traits and a
Narcissism factor were retained. These factor were highly correlated (r = .55). The
presence of a separate Narcissism factor is consistent with a three-factor model of
psychopathy (Frick et al., 2000), and suggest that narcissism is a distinct construct from
CU traits and ICP. Although, the nine-factor structure was replicated in another sample of
boys and a sample of girls, the structure deteriorate when factor correlations and item
loading or just item loadings were specified. This suggests that there may be a better
model for this data than the nine-factor structure. The model fit was equivalent in both
samples, which suggests that the deteriorated fit in the girls was not dependent of sex. No
differences were observed in behavioral correlates across sex; sexual promiscuity,
aggression, internalizing symptoms, school problems, conflicts between children and
their parents, histories of victimization, and employment difficulties were all positively
related to CU traits. Strengths of this study include the large sample of girls (n=736, 42%
of total sample) and African-Americans (n=771, 44% of total sample). Limitations
include the use of a measure that was not specifically designed to capture psychopathic
traits and the limited randomization of the two samples of boys. Future studies wishing to
establish the validity of a two- or three-factor model of psychopathy in girls should use
an established psychopathy screening measure (i.e., the ASPD; Frick & Hare, 2001) and
include equal proportions of Caucasian and African-American girls in community and
more deviant samples to establish a model that is independent of sex and race.
50
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Bardone, A.M., Moffitt, T.E., & Caspi, A. , Dickinson, N. (1996). Adult mental health
and social outcomes of adolescent girls with depression and conduct disorder.
Development & Psychopathology ,8, 811-829.
Brandt, J.R., Kennedy, W.A., Patrick, C.J., & Curtin, J.J. (1997). Assessment of
psychopathy in a population of incarcerated adolescent offenders. Psychological
Assessment, 9, 429-435.
Cale, E.M., & Lilienfeld, S.O. (2002). Sex differences in psychopathy and antisocial
personality disorder: A review and integration. Clinical Psychology Review, 22,
1179-1207.
Capaldi, D. M. & Patterson, G. R. (1991). Relation of parental transitions to boys'
adjustment problems: I. A linear hypothesis: II. Mothers at risk for transitions and
unskilled parenting. Developmental Psychology, 27, 489-504.
Capaldi, D.M., Stoolmiller, M., Clark, S., & Owen, L.D. (2002). Heterosexual risk
behaviors in at-risk young men from early adolescence to young adulthood:
Prevalence, prediction, and association with STD contraction. Developmental
Psychology, 38, 394-406.
Caputo, A.A., Frick, P.J., & Brodsky, S.L. (1999). Family violence and juvenile sex
offending: Potential mediating roles of psychopathic traits and negative attitudes
toward women. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 338-356.
Christian, R.E., Frick, P.J., Hill, N.L., Tyler, L., & Frazer, D.R. (1997). Psychopathy and
conduct problems in children: II. Implications for subtyping children with conduct
problems. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36,
233-241.
51
Cornell, D.G., Warren, J., Hawk, G., Stafford, E., Oram, G., & Pine, D. (1996).
Psychopathy in instrumental and reactive violent offenders. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 64, 783-790.
Cleckly, H. (1941, 1976). The mask of sanity (5th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Crick, N.R., Bigbee, M.A., & Howes, C. (1996). Gender differences in childrens
normative beliefs about aggression: How do I hurt thee? Let me count the ways.
Child Development, 67, 1003-1014.
Crick, N.R., & Dodge, K.A. (1996). Social information-processing mechanisms on
reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67, 993-1002.
Cunningham, M.D. & Reidy, T.J. (1998). Antisocial personality disorder and
psychopathy: Diagnostic dilemmas in classifying patterns of antisocial behavior
in sentencing evaluations. Behavior Sciences and the Law, 16, 333-351.
Day, R., & Wong, S. (1996). Anomalous perceptual asymmetries for negative emotional
stimuli in the psychopath. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 648-652.
Dodge, K.A. (1991). The structure and function of reactive and proactive aggression. In
D.J. Pepler & K.H. Rubin (Eds), The development and treatment of childhood
aggression (pp. 201-218). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Falkenbach, D.M., Poythress, N.G., & Heide, K.M. (2003). Psychopathic features in a
juvenile diversion population: reliability and predictive validity of two self-report
measures. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 21, 787-805.
Fisher, L., & Blair, R.. (1998). Cognitive impairment and its relationship to psychopathic
tendencies in children with emotional and behavioral difficulties. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 511-519.
Floyd, F.J., & Widaman, K.F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement
of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7,286-299.
Frick, P. J. (1998). Conduct disorders and severe antisocial behavior.New York, NY:
Plenum Press.
52
Frick, P.J., Bodin, S.D., & Barry, C.T. (2000). Psychopathic traits and conduct problems
in community and clinic-referred samples of children: Further development of the
Psychopathy Screening Device. Psychological Assessment, 12, 382-393.
Frick, P.J., Cornell, A.H., Barry, C.T., Bodin, S.D., & Dane, H.A. (2003). Callousunemotional traits and conduct problems in the prediction of conduct problem
severity, aggression, and self-report of delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child
Frick, P.J., & Hare, R.D. (2001). The Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD).
Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Frick, P.J., Kimonis, E.R., Dandreaux, D.M., & Farell, J.M. (2003). The four year
stability of psychopathic traits in non-referred youth. Behavioral Sciences and the
Law, 21, 713-736.
Frick, P. J., Lilienfeld, S.O., Ellis, M., Loney, B., & Silverthorn, P. The association
between anxiety and psychopathy dimensions in children. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 27, 383-392.
Frick, P.J., O'Brien, B.S., Wootton, J. M.., & McBurnett, K. (1994). Psychopathy and
conduct problems in children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103(4), 700-707
Frick, P.J., & Loney, B. R. (1999). Outcomes of children and adolescents with
oppositional deviant disorder and conduct disorder. In Handbook of disruptive
behavior disorders. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gavazzi, S.M., Slade, D., Buettner, C.K., Partridge, C., Yarcheck, C.M., & Andrews,
D.W. (2003). Toward conceptual development and empirical measurement of
global risk indicators in the lives of court0involved youth. Psychological reports,
92, 599-615.
Gavazzi, S.M. & Lim, J. Y. (2003). Advances in measurement of global risk indicators in
lives of court-involved youth: Brief evidence for concurrent validity.
Psychological Reports, 93, 750-752.
Gretton, H.M., Hare, R.D., & Catchpole, R.E. (2004). Psychopathy and offending from
adolescence to adulthood: A 10-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 72, 636-645.
53
Hare, R.D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto:Multi-Health

Systems.
Hare, R.D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (2nd edition ).
Toronto:Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R.D., Hart, S.D., & Harpur, T.J. (1991). Psychopathy and the DSM-IV criteria for
antisocial personality development. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 391398.
Harpur, T.J., Hare, R.D., & Hakstian, A.R.(1989). Two-factor conceptualization of
psychopathy: Construct validity and assessment implications. Psychological
Assessment, 1, 6-17.
Hinshaw, S.P., & Anderson, C.A. (1996). Conduct and oppositional defiant disorders. In
E. J. Mash & R.A. Barkley (Eds.), Child Psychopathology (pp.113-152). New
York, NY: Guilford.
Hoyt, S., & Scherer, D.G. (1998). Female juvenile delinquency: Misunderstood by the
juvenile justice system, neglected by social science. Law and Human Behavior,
22, 81-107.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1999). Juvenile crime
statistics. Retrieved July 5, 2005, from http://www.juvenilejusticefyi.com/
juvenile_crimes.html
Kazdin, A.E. (1995). Conduct disorders in childhood and adolescence (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kazdin, A.E. (1998). Conduct disorder. In R.J. Morris, & T.R. Kratochwill (Eds.), The
Practice of Child Therapy. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kovacs, M., Krol, R. S. M., & Voti, L. (1994). Early onset psychopathology and the risk
for teenage pregnancy among clinically referred girls. Journal of the American
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 33, 106-113.
Lagerspetz, K.M., Bjorkqvist, K., & Peltonen, T. (1988). Is indirect aggression typical of
females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11-to12- year old children.
Aggressive Behavior, 14, 403-414.
54
Lilienfeld, S.O. (1994). Methodological advances and developments in the assessment of

psychopathy. Clinical Psychology Review, 14, 17-38.
Loeber, R. (1991). Antisocial behavior: More enduring than changeable? Journal of the
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 285-300.
Lokus, A.D. (1995). Criminal behavior, violent behavior, and prison maladjustment in
federal female offenders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queens University,
Kingston, Ontario.
Loney, B.R., Frick, P.J., Clements, C.B., Ellis, M.L., & Kerlin, K. (2003). Callousunemotional traits, impulsivity, and emotional processing in adolescents with
antisocial behavior problems. Journal of Child Clinical and Adolescent
Lynam, D.R. (1997). The early identification of chronic offenders: Who is the fledgling
psychopath? Psychological Bulletin, 120, 209-234.
Mailoux, D.L., Forth, A.E., & Kroner, D.G. (1997). Psychopathy and substance use in
adolescent male offenders. Psychological Reports, 81,529-530.
Mash, E.J., & Barkley, R.A. ( 1996). Child Psychopathology. New York, NY: Guilford.
McGee, R., Feehan, M., Williams, S., & Anderson, J. (1992). DSM-III disorders from
age 11 to 15 years. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 31, 50-59.
Moffit, T.E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course persistent antisocial behavior: A
developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.
Moffit, T.E., Caspi, A., Dickson, N., Silva, P., & Stanton, W. (1996). Childhood-onset
versus adolescent-onset antisocial conduct problems in males: Natural history
from ages 3 to 18 years. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 399-342.
Myers, W.C., Burker, R.C., & Harris, H.E. (1995). Adolescent psychopathy in relation to
delinquent behaviors, conduct disorders, and personality disorders. Journal of
Forensic Sciences, 40, 436-440.
55
OBrien, B.S., & Frick, P.J. (1996). Reward dominance: Associations with anxiety,
conduct problems, and psychopathy in children. Journal of Abnormal Child
Ogloff, J.R.P., Wong, S. & Greenwood, A. (1990). Treating criminal psychopaths in a
therapeutic community program. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 8, 181-190.
Pajer, K.A. (1998). What happens to bad girls?: A review of the adult outcomes of
antisocial adolescent girls. American Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 862-870.
Pardini, D.A., Lochman, J.E., & Frick, P.J. (2003). Callous/unemotional traits and socialcognitive processes in adjudicated youths. Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 42,
364-371.
Patrick, C.J., Cuthbert, B.N., & Lang, P.J. (1994). Emotion in the criminal psychopath:
Fear imaging processing. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 523-534.
Patterson, G.R. (1993). Orderly change in a stable world: The antisocial trait as a chimera.
Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 61, 911-919.
Patterson, G.R. (1982). Coercive family processes. Eugene, OR: Castalia Publishing
Company.
Pham, T.H., Remy, S., Dailliet, A., & Lienard, L. (1998). Psychopathy and evaluation of
violent behavior in a psychiatric security milieu. Encephale, 24, 435-441.
Poe-Yamagata, E., & Burns, J.A. (1996). Female offenders in the juvenile justice
system.Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Robbins, L.N. (1981). Epidemiological approaches to natural history research: Antisocial
disorders in children. Journal of American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 32, 566580.
Rosenbaum, A. & O'Leary, K. D. (1981). Children: The unintended victims of marital
violence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51, 692-699.
56
Salekin, R.T., Rogers, R., & Sewell, K.W. (1997). Construct validity of psychopathy in a
female offender sample: A multitrait-multimethod evaluation. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 106, 576-585.
Salekin, R.T., Rogers, R., Ustad, K.L., & Sewell, K.W. (1998). Psychopathy and
recidivism among female inmates. Law & Human Behavior, 22, 109-128.
Seagrave, D., & Grisso, T. (2002). Adolescent development and the measurement of
juvenile psychopathy. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 219-239.
Silverthorn, P., & Frick, P.J. (1999). Developmental pathways to antisocial behavior: The
delayed-onset pathway in girls. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 101-126.
Simon, T.R., Crosby, A.E., & Dahlberg, L.L. (1999). Students who carry weapons to
high school: Comparison with other weapon-carriers. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 24, 340-348.
Smith, A. M., Gacono, C.B., & Kaufman, L. (1997). A Rorschach comparison of
psychopathic and nonpsychopathic conduct disordered adolescents. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 53, 289-300.
Spain, S.E., Douglas, K.S., Poythress, N.G., & Epstein, M. (2004). The relationship
between psychopathic features, violence, and treatment outcome: The comparison
of three youth measures of psychopathic features. Behavioral Sciences and the
Law, 22, 85-102.
Tien, G., Lamb, D., Bond, L., Gillstrom, B., & Paris, F. (1993). Report on the needs
assessment of women at the Burnaby Correctional Center for Women. Burnaby:
British Columbia: BC Institute of Family Violence.
Ugueto, A.M., & Vasey, M.W. (2001, November). Articulating the difference between
proactive and reactive aggression. Poster presented at the thirty-fifth annual
meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy,
Philadelphia, PA.
Vasey, M.W. (2002). Some further demonstrations of the importance of psychopathy for
understanding aggressive youth. In P. Frick (Chair), Critical issues in extending
the construct of psychopathy to youth. Symposium conducted at the annual
convention of the American Psychological Society, New Orleans, LA.
57
Vincent, G.M., Vitacco, M.J., Grisso, T.& Corrado, R.R. (2003). Subtypes of adolescent
offenders: Affective traits and antisocial behavior patterns. Behavioral Sciences
and the Law, 21, 695-712.
Vitale, J.E.& Newman, J.P. (1991). Using the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised with
female samples: Reliability, validity, and implications for clinical utility. Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice, 8, 2001-20025.
Walker, J.L., Lahey, B.B., Russo, M.F., Frick, P.J., Christ, M.A.G., McBurnett, K.,
Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Green, S.M. (1991). Anxiety, inhibition,
and conduct disorder in children: I. Relations to social impairment. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 187-191.
Werner, E.E. (1987). Vulnerability and resiliency in children at risk for delinquency: A
longitudinal study from birth to young adulthood. In J.D. Burchard & S.N.
Burchard (Eds.), Prevention of delinquent behavior: Vol.10. Primary prevention
of psychopathology (pp.16-43). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Woodward, L. J., Fergusson, D. M. (1999). Early conduct problems and later risk of
teenage pregnancy in girls. Development & Psychopathology, 11, 127-141.
Zoccolillo, M. (1992). Co-occurrence of conduct disorder and its adult outcomes with
depressive and anxiety disorders: A review. Journal of the American Academy of
Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, 547-556.
Zoccolillo, M. (1993). Gender and the development of conduct disorder. Development
and Psychopathology, 5, 65-78.
Zoccolillo, M., & Rogers, K. (1991). Characteristics and outcome of hospitalized
adolescent girls with conduct disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 973-981.
Zoccolillo, M., Tremblay, R., & Vitaro, F. (1996). DSM-III-R and DSM-III criteria for
conduct disorder in preadolescent girls: Specific but insensitive. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 461-470.
58
APPENDIX A
TABLES
59
Psychopathy Checklist
Revised (Two-Factors)
(Hare, 1991)
Psychopathy Screening
Device (Two-Factors)
(Frick, OBrien, Wootton, &
McBurnett, 1999)
Antisocial Process
Screening Device
(Three-Factors)
(Frick & Hare, 2001)
Antisocial Lifestyle
Need for stimulationproneness to boredom.
Parasistic lifestyle.
Impulsive/Conduct Problems
Brags about accomplishments.
Impulsivity
Does not plan ahead.
Engages in risky or dangerous

activities.
Blames other for mistakes.
Engages in risky
activities.
Blames other for
mistakes.
Acts without thinking.
Gets bored easily.
Poor behavioral controls.

Early behavior problems.
Lack of realistic, long-term
goals
Impulsivity.
Irresponsibility.
Juvenile delinquency.
Revocation of release.
Emotional Detachment
Conning manipulative.
Callous lack of empathy.
Failure to accept
responsibility for actions.
Lack or remorse/guilt
Glibness-superficial charm.
Shallow affect.
Acts without thinking.

Gets bored easily.
Teases other people.
Becomes angry when
corrected.
Engages in illegal activities.
Keeps the same friends.
Thinks s/he is more important
than others.
Callous-Unemotional Traits
Is concerned about the feelings
of others.(R)
Feels bad or guilty. (R)
Concerned about schoolwork.
(R)
Does not show emotions.
Acts charming in ways that
seem insincere.
Emotions seem shallow.
Global Risk
Assessment Device
(Gavazzi, Slade,
Buettner, Partridge,
Yarcheck, & Andrews,
2003)
Callous-Unemotional
Traits
Is concerned feelings of
others.(R)
Feels bad or guilty. (R)
Is concerned about
schoolwork. (R)
Does not show emotion.
Callous-Unemotional
Traits
No responsibility for
actions.
No guilt when caught.
Covers up wrong doings.
Keeps promises.(R)
Manipulates others.
Keeps the same friends.

(R)
Lies with straight face.
Blames others.
Grandiose sense of selfworth.

Pathological lying.
Failure to accept
responsibility for actions.
Continued
Table 1. Psychopathy Measures
60
Table 1 continued
Items Not Included

Promiscuous sexual
behavior.
Many short-term marital
relationships.
Criminal versatility.
Items Not Included

Uses or cons others.
Thinks more important.

Brags excessively.
Uses or cons others.
Can be charming.
Teases others.
Becomes angry when
corrected.
Emotions seem shallow.
Items Not Included
Lies easily and skillfully.
Lies easily and skillfully.

Does not plan ahead.
61
Inflated sense of abilities.

Exaggerates abilities.
Feels more deserving.
Charming but insincere.
Inflated sense of abilities.
GRAD Item Updates

Youth Version
September 10, 2004
Prior Offenses (5)
1. How often have the police or anyone else from law enforcement stopped you because of something you did?
2. How often have you been involved in any kind of illegal activity that did NOT involve law enforcement or that you did
NOT get caught for?
3. Have you ever made a formal appearance in court (appeared for a court date before a judge or magistrate)?
4. Have you ever made an informal appearance in court (parent took you or you had to meet with court personnel other
than a judge or magistrate)?
5. Have you ever spent time in juvenile detention or lock-up?
Family/Parenting (17)
1. How often do you get into fights with adults who live in your home?
2. How much of the time do the adults who live with you NOT know where you are?
3. Are family members ever too critical of you?
4. Do you ever feel that you are not welcome to stay in your home?
5. Are you ever at-risk of harm, or are you ever in physical danger when you are in your home?
6. When you are punished for your behavior, is it harsh (the punishment is worse than the behavior) or inconsistent
(the punishment is never the same twice for the same behavior)? 7. How often have you been involved in a physical
fight (shoving, hitting, punching etc.) with an adult family member as a result of something you did wrong?
8. How often are adults who live in your home verbally abusive to you (swearing, calling you names etc.)?
9. Do you ever become more uncontrollable after you have been punished?
10. Do your family members ever seem to go out of their way to NOT upset you?
11. Does it ever seem like your family members tip-toe around you (so they don't upset you)?
12. How often do you fight with your brothers and sisters?
13. Does it seem like the adults in your home do things themselves instead of asking you to do them?
14. Does your relationship with your mother ever feel not so good?
15. Does your relationship with your father ever feel not so good?
16. Does your family have a hard time paying bills and buying food?
17. Has your family been contacted by a social service agency because of something happening in your home?
Education/Vocation (16)
1. Have you experienced academic difficulty in school?
2. Have you had difficulty controlling your behavior in school?
3. Have you had a difficult time getting to school or staying in school for the entire day? 4. Have you missed school
frequently due to family responsibilities (sibling care, etc.)?
5. Have you had conflict with any of your teachers?
6. Has the school called home this school year because you have been disruptive in class? 7. Have you interrupted
what was going on in your classes because of your talking or your behavior?
8. Have you been in danger of dropping out of school?
9. Were you held back a grade?
10. Were you told that you may have learning problems?
11. Were you enrolled in special education classes?
Continued
Table 2. Global Risk Assessment Device (GRAD)
62
Table 2 continued
Education/Vocation cont. (16)
12. Did you have difficulty reading and/or writing?
13. Did you have difficulty keeping a job that you had?
14. Did you have difficulty living up to job responsibilities/requirements?
15. Did you have difficulties with adult supervisors in work situations?
16. Did you have a hard time getting along with fellow employees that were your own age?
Peers/Significant Relationships (15)
1. Have you ever been without any SAME sex friends?
2. Have you ever been without a best friend?
3. Do you ever prefer to hang around with friends who are older than you (at least two years)?
4. Do you ever date individuals who are much older/younger (by four or more years)?
5. Have you ever gotten into trouble with someone that you date?
6. Have you ever had someone that you dated that you argued with all the time?
7. Have you ever associated with other young people who are known to be gang involved or are loosely associated
with a gang?
8. Have you ever been in a gang?
9. Have you ever had friends who have been in trouble with the law?
10. How often do you have frequent or longstanding arguments with other youth?
11. Do you ever gossip or spread rumors about other youth?
12. Have you ever bullied or were cruel to someone your own age?
13. Have you ever preferred to not let your friends meet adult members of your family? 14. Do other youth lie, gossip or
spread rumors about you?
15. Have you ever been bullied or have other youth been cruel to you?
Substance Use/Abuse (14)
1. Have you ever drank alcohol?
2. Have you ever used marijuana?
3. Have you ever smoked or chewed tobacco?
4. Have you ever used "club drugs" (ecstasy), acid or other psychedelic drugs?
5. Have you ever used sniffed glue, aerosol sprays, or other inhalants?
6. Have you ever used legal drugs for non-medical reasons?
7. Have you ever used highly addictive drugs (crack, cocaine, heroin)?
8. Have drugs and/or alcohol ever played a role in disrupting your academic performance?
9. Have drugs and/or alcohol ever played a role in disrupting the relationship between you and school personnel?
10. Have drugs and/or alcohol ever played a role in disrupting the relationship between you and your peer group?
11. Have drugs and/or alcohol ever played a role in disrupting the relationship between you and your family members?
12. Have you ever used drugs and/or alcohol with a parent or another adult family member?
13. Have you ever used drugs and/or alcohol at home?
14. Have you ever traded sex for drugs?
Leisure (4)
1. Has there ever been a time that you have NOT been interested, or chose NOT to participate in ANY structured
activities that are either school or community related?
2. Have you ever had family responsibilities that limit or prohibit your after-school activities?
3. Do you ever have a lot of spare time?
4. Has there ever been a time that you did NOT have any hobbies?
Continued
63
Table 2 continued
Personality/Behavior (26)
1. Do you ever have difficulty controlling your anger?
2. Do you ever exaggerate how good you are at doing something?
3. Do you ever have trouble paying attention or concentrating?
4. Are you ever high strung or tense?
5. Are you ever nervous or do you ever get startled easily?
6. Do you ever have a hard time sitting still?
7. Do you ever try to get attention from someone any way you can?
8. Do you ever try to get even with people when they do something to you?
9. Do you ever destroy things that belong to you when you get angry?
10. Do you ever yell, shout or curse too much?
11. Have you ever threatened to harm people?
12. Have you ever been physically aggressive towards others?
13. Do you ever get into a motor vehicle with others who drive under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol?
14. Do you ever do things to hurt your body, like cutting yourself?
15. Do you ever do things that are dangerous, like jumping from high places, moving cars etc.?
16. Do you ever have bad dreams or nightmares?
17. Do you ever have difficulty sleeping?
18. Have you ever lost interest in things you used to enjoy?
19. Do you ever feel sad, moody, blue or depressed?
20. Do you ever feel like you cant trust anyone?
21. Have you ever experienced a major change in appetite (either increase or decrease)? 22. Do you ever have panic
attacks?
23. Do you ever have difficulty breathing, pain in your chest, or it feels like your heart is pounding too much?
24. Have you ever felt like you were physically numb to pain?
25. Do you ever feel like you think about or talk about sex too much?
26. Do you ever feel like you dont belong anywhere because of the color of your skin or the family you come from?
Sociability (7)
1. Do you ever feel like your abilities are a lot better than others?
2. Do you ever feel like you are more important than other people?
3. Do you ever feel like you are better or more deserving than others?
4. Do you ever get bored easily?
5. Are you ever cold and unfeeling towards others?
6. Do you ever try to manipulate or use others?
7. Are you ever 'slick' or charming, but not really sincere?
Trauma (12)
1. Have you ever been a victim of physical abuse?
2. Have you ever been a victim of sexual abuse?
3. Have you ever been neglected by someone who was supposed to care for you (left alone, not had your needs for
food, shelter, or clothing taken care of, etc.)?
4. Have you ever been involved in a violent dating relationship?
5. Have you ever witnessed domestic violence in the home?
6. Have you ever seen someone you know get really sick and/or hurt?
7. Have you ever witnessed a violent act against another person (shooting, stabbing, beating)?
8. Have you ever seen someone die?
9. Have you ever been threatened by another person with physical harm?
Continued
64
Table 2 continued
10. Have you ever been a victim of a crime?
11. Have you ever been hospitalized for a significant injury or illness?
12. Do you ever feel numb when you think about things that have happened to you?
Accountability (7)
1. When you can get away with it, do you ever try to blame others instead of taking responsibility for your actions and
behaviors?
2. Do you ever feel more mad instead of guilty when you get caught doing something wrong?
3. Do you ever feel like your mistakes or misbehaviors are someone else's fault?
4. Have you ever lied with a straight face and gotten away with something?
5. Have you ever tried to cover up your actions after you have done something wrong?
6. Have you ever felt like you didnt belong in your community?
7. Have you ever felt like you didnt belong in your school or with your classmates?
Health Services (9)
1. Have you had contact with a helping professional because of your health in the last year?
2. Have you ever gone without regular medical check-ups?
3. Have you ever gone without eating healthy foods at mealtimes? ?
4. Have you ever had problems with your weight (either over or under)?
5. Have you ever been sexually active?
6. Have you ever been pregnant or you have impregnated someone else?
7. Have you ever engaged in unprotected sex?
8. Have you had sex with more than one partner?
9. Have you ever taken money for a sexual act?
65
(the punishment is never the same twice for the same behavior)?
with a gang?
9. Do other youth lie, gossip or spread rumors about you?
Continued
Table 3. 75 items selected from GRAD
66
Table 3 continued
Personality/Behavior cont. (26)
attacks?
Sociability (7)
Trauma (4)
Accountability (7)
behaviors?
6. Have you ever felt like you didnt belong in your school or with your classmates?
Table 3 continued
Health Services (5)
67
with a gang?
6. Do other youth lie, gossip or spread rumors about you?
Sociability (2)
Accountability (1)
Health Services (1)
Table 4. 27 Variables Omitted from Item Selection
68
(the punishment is never the same twice for the same behavior)?
attacks?
Sociability (6)
Continued
Table 5. Final Item Selection from GRAD
69
Table 5 continued
Trauma (4)
Accountability (5)
behaviors?
Health Services (4)
70
Minimum
Maximum
6
19
Mean
1.53
14.93
Std. Deviation
.686
1.824
.60
.735
506
506
506
506
506
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
.60
.45
.68
.64
.35
.716
.677
.736
.691
.613
506
.38
.656
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
.86
.72
.53
.38
.53
.40
.50
.770
.794
.731
.656
.690
.647
.679
506
.36
.592
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
.54
.30
.08
.19
.30
.31
.39
.665
.573
.319
.464
.547
.569
.651
Race/Ethnicity
Age
No Responsibility For Actions
506
506
1
7
506
No Guilt When Caught

Blames Others
Lies With Straight Face
Covers Up Wrong Doings
Manipulates Others
Lack Of Belonging To School
Academic Difficulty
School Behavior Difficulty
Teacher Conflict
Learning Problems
Tries To Get Even
Threatens To Harm
Physically Aggressive
Lost Interest In Past
Enjoyments
Moody - Depressed
Appetite Change
Panic Attacks
Difficulty Breathing
Nervous
Bad Dreams
Trouble Sleeping
Continued
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics, Boys Sample 1
71
Table 6 continued
N
Minimum
Maximum
Inflated Sense Of Abilities

Excessive Self Worth
Feels More Deserving
Charming But Insincere
Exaggerates Abilities
Preoccupied With Sex
Difficulty Keeping Job
Job Responsibilities Difficulty
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
.41
.22
.24
.43
.48
.20
.08
Std. Deviation
.627
.511
.529
.648
.669
.504
.335
506
.09
.352
Adult-Youth Conflict
Youth Not Welcome Home
Youth At Risk At Home
Harsh Punishment
Uncontrollable After
Punishment
Poor Mother Relation
Poor Father Relation
Sexually Active
Involved With Pregnancy
Engage In Unprotected Sex
Has Multi Sex Partners
Prefers Older Friends
Older Dating
Dating Conflicts
Physical Victimization
Sexual Victimization
History Of Neglect
Victim Of A Crime
506
506
506
506
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
.53
.22
.07
.32
.720
.516
.309
.601
506
.41
.658
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
.43
.63
.54
.08
.24
.29
.59
.19
.20
.25
.06
.21
.25
.664
.822
.736
.337
.539
.598
.709
.476
.484
.560
.288
.494
.509
72
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
6
19
Mean
1.58
14.88
Std. Deviation
.822
1.811
.59
.735
506
506
506
506
506
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
.55
.45
.71
.64
.31
.711
.679
.759
.719
.574
506
.33
.612
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
.86
.72
.54
.34
.51
.40
.50
.807
.783
.706
.640
.696
.632
.676
506
.35
.582
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
.49
.28
.07
.15
.32
.26
.33
.639
.562
.294
.419
.575
.529
.616
Race/Ethnicity
Age
506
506
1
6
506

Blames Others
Manipulates Others
Academic Difficulty
Teacher Conflict
Learning Problems
Tries To Get Even
Threatens To Harm
Enjoyments
Moody - Depressed
Appetite Change
Panic Attacks
Nervous
Bad Dreams
Trouble Sleeping
Continued
Table 7. Descriptive Statistics, Boys Sample 2
73
Table 7 continued
N
Minimum
Maximum

506
506
506
506
506
506
506
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
.39
.19
.20
.37
.40
.19
.07
Std. Deviation
.623
.468
.481
.586
.629
.519
.303
506
.07
.284
Harsh Punishment
Punishment
Sexually Active
Older Dating
Dating Conflicts
History Of Neglect
Victim Of A Crime
506
506
506
506
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
.56
.23
.09
.32
.721
.536
.348
.614
506
.44
.679
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
506
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
.44
.57
.56
.08
.24
.30
.61
.26
.19
.17
.06
.18
.27
.688
.783
.756
.297
.558
.633
.740
.557
.490
.467
.292
.489
.529
74
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
6
18
Mean
1.65
14.86
Std. Deviation
.821
1.505
.67
.773
736
736
736
736
736
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
.72
.51
.81
.72
.40
.769
.719
.792
.743
.646
736
.48
.730
736
736
736
736
736
736
736
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
.76
.67
.52
.25
.61
.48
.55
.806
.798
.702
.562
.743
.674
.692
736
.53
.720
736
736
736
736
736
736
736
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
.78
.43
.19
.28
.42
.50
.42
.760
.695
.477
.546
.651
.709
.665
Race/Ethnicity
Age
736
736
1
10
736

Blames Others
Manipulates Others
Academic Difficulty
Teacher Conflict
Learning Problems
Tries To Get Even
Threatens To Harm
Enjoyments
Moody-Depressed
Appetite Change
Panic Attacks
Bad Dreams
Trouble Sleeping
Nervous
Continued
Table 8. Descriptive Statistics, Girls
75
Table 8 continued
N
Minimum
Maximum

736
736
736
736
736
736
736
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
.38
.26
.28
.44
.42
.21
.06
Std. Deviation
.618
.537
.548
.642
.665
.536
.272
736
.07
.294
Harsh Punishment
Punishment
Sexually Active
Older Dating
Dating Conflicts
History Of Neglect
Victim Of A Crime
736
736
736
736
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
.86
.47
.12
.36
.821
.728
.399
.627
736
.58
.750
736
736
736
736
736
736
736
736
736
736
736
736
736
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
.75
.78
.71
.18
.40
.34
.81
.40
.32
.26
.24
.26
.26
.804
.878
.773
.480
.639
.596
.823
.703
.597
.574
.523
.561
.530
76
Mean
Race
Race
Age
No
Responsibility
No Guilt
Blames Othesr
Lies
Covers Up
Lack Belonging
Nervous
Bad Dreams
Trouble Sleeping
Lost Interest
Moody/Dep.
Appetite Change
Panic Attacks
Difficulty
Breathing
Physically
aggressive
Threatens
Tries to Get
Even
Academic
Difficulty
School Behavior
Difficulty
Teacher Conflict
Adult Youth
Conflict
Youth Not
Welcome
Youth at Risk
Harsh
Punishment
Uncontrollable
Age
No Respons.
No Guilt
1
-0.063
-0.063
1
0.146
-0.125
0.130
-0.077
Blames
Others
0.092
-0.142
Lies
0.182
-.085
Covers
Up
0.149
-0.065
Lack
Belonging
0.071
-0.063
0.146
-0.125
0.633
0.621
0.611
0.608
0.366
0.130
0.092
0.182
0.149
0.071
0.098
0.116
0.058
-0.001
-0.059
-0.118
-0.176
-0.077
-0.142
-0.085
-0.065
-0.063
0.003
0.016
0.048
0.079
0.110
0.142
0.173
0.633
0.621
0.611
0.608
0.366
0.189
0.071
0.155
0.239
0.324
0.408
0.492
1
0.561
0.544
0.576
0.318
0.242
0.092
0.188
0.285
0.381
0.477
0.573
0.561
1
0.521
0.537
0.380
0.142
0.061
0.183
0.305
0.427
0.549
0.671
0.544
0.521
1
0.715
0.313
0.226
0.075
0.201
0.328
0.455
0.581
0.708
0.576
0.537
0.715
1
0.290
0.234
0.067
0.255
0.442
0.630
0.818
1.006
0.318
0.380
0.313
0.290
1
0.220
0.065
0.288
0.510
0.732
0.955
1.177
-0.235
0.204
0.577
0.670
0.793
0.834
1.194
1.400
-0.293
0.236
0.661
0.766
0.914
0.961
1.382
1.622
-0.351
0.267
0.745
0.862
1.036
1.087
1.570
1.844
-0.410
0.299
0.830
0.958
1.158
1.214
1.758
2.067
-0.468
0.330
0.914
1.055
1.280
1.340
1.945
2.289
-0.527
0.361
0.998
1.151
1.402
1.467
2.133
2.512
-0.585
0.393
1.083
1.247
1.524
1.594
2.321
2.734
-0.644
0.424
1.167
1.344
1.646
1.720
2.509
2.956
-0.702
0.455
1.251
1.440
1.768
1.847
2.697
3.179
-0.761
0.487
1.335
1.536
1.890
1.973
2.885
3.401
-0.819
0.518
1.420
1.632
2.012
2.100
3.073
3.624
-0.878
0.550
1.504
1.729
2.134
2.226
3.260
3.846
Continued
Table 9. Correlation Matrix, Boys
77
Table 9 continued
Race
Poor Mom
Relation
Poor Dad
Relation
Sexually
Active
Pregnancy
Unprotected
Sex
Multi Sex
Partners
Older Friends
Older Dating
Dating
Conflicts
Inflated
Abilities
Excessive
Self Worth
More
Deserving
Manipulates
Charming,
Insincere
Exaggerates
Abilities
Learning
Problems
Preoccupied
With Sex
Diff Keep Job
Job Resp.
Difficulty
Physical
Victimization
Sexual
Victimization
Neglect
Victim of
Crime
Age
No
Respons.
No Guilt
Blames
Others
Lies
Covers Up
Lack
Belonging
0.060
-0.015
0.394
0.348
0.327
0.392
0.353
0.287
0.152
-0.064
0.363
0.348
0.293
0.304
0.293
0.225
0.163
0.293
0.092
0.126
0.032
0.215
0.204
0.073
0.106
0.171
-0.007
0.018
-0.042
0.083
0.079
0.063
0.142
0.219
0.055
0.079
-0.018
0.178
0.143
0.077
0.201
0.213
0.029
0.083
-0.021
0.172
0.172
0.073
0.241
0.159
0.073
0.135
0.197
0.062
0.282
0.105
0.125
0.005
0.294
0.187
0.268
0.166
0.141
0.062
0.122
0.168
0.086
0.148
0.008
0.161
0.152
0.051
0.140
0.011
0.247
0.254
0.262
0.315
0.286
0.217
0.155
-0.085
0.283
0.298
0.328
0.349
0.296
0.177
0.112
-0.077
0.311
0.272
0.349
0.312
0.314
0.177
0.132
-0.117
0.494
0.447
0.488
0.449
0.461
0.314
0.172
-0.003
0.371
0.385
0.354
0.458
0.448
0.286
0.218
-0.065
0.325
0.375
0.312
0.336
0.372
0.205
0.035
-0.064
0.232
0.241
0.236
0.207
0.193
0.304
0.140
0.083
0.183
0.182
0.106
0.237
0.247
0.136
-0.008
0.142
0.118
0.068
0.067
0.104
0.108
0.117
-0.014
0.115
0.170
0.164
0.106
0.121
0.145
0.154
0.001
0.025
0.118
0.157
0.129
0.115
0.150
0.161
0.031
0.000
0.091
0.071
0.090
0.074
0.067
0.003
0.096
-0.044
0.185
0.176
0.176
0.193
0.186
0.198
0.074
0.097
0.117
0.156
0.092
0.188
0.195
0.102
Continued
78
Table 9 continued
Nervous
Race
Age
No
Responsibility
No Guilt
Blames Othesr
Lies
Covers Up
Lack Belonging
Nervous
Bad Dreams
Trouble
Sleeping
Lost Interest
Moody/Dep.
Appetite Change
Panic Attacks
Difficulty
Breathing
Physically
aggressive
Threatens
Tries to Get
Even
Academic
Difficulty
School Behavior
Difficulty
Teacher Conflict
Adult Youth
Conflict
Youth Not
Welcome
Youth at Risk
Harsh
Punishment
Uncontrollable
0.098
0.003
Bad
Dreams
0.116
0.016
Trouble
Sleeping
0.058
0.048
Lost
Interest
0.091
0.065
Moody/
Dep.
0.074
0.012
Appetite
Change
0.112
0.037
Panic
Attacks
0.013
0.021
Diff.
Breathing
0.060
0.039
0.189
0.071
0.155
0.215
0.233
0.148
0.045
0.064
0.242
0.142
0.226
0.234
0.220
1
0.064
0.092
0.061
0.075
0.109
0.163
0.331
1
0.188
0.183
0.201
0.229
0.209
0.339
0.475
0.262
0.248
0.225
0.281
0.298
0.228
0.329
0.260
0.228
0.261
0.290
0.368
0.347
0.361
0.250
0.165
0.229
0.278
0.303
0.301
0.372
0.103
0.083
0.093
0.142
0.151
0.315
0.301
0.129
0.072
0.119
0.174
0.165
0.266
0.411
0.321
0.475
0.361
0.430
0.363
0.312
0.335
0.578
0.835
1.092
1.349
0.329
0.361
0.372
0.301
0.361
0.430
0.363
0.312
1
0.415
0.416
0.218
0.415
1
0.416
0.249
0.416
0.416
1
0.290
0.218
0.249
0.290
1
0.269
0.321
0.372
0.416
1.605
0.411
0.335
0.269
0.321
0.372
0.416
1.862
0.215
0.227
0.249
0.333
0.302
0.179
0.205
2.119
0.184
0.223
0.281
0.332
0.294
0.238
0.255
2.376
0.222
0.251
0.333
0.341
0.346
0.159
0.230
2.633
0.051
0.181
0.199
0.226
0.184
0.073
0.054
2.890
0.088
0.151
0.202
0.247
0.214
0.092
0.086
3.147
0.037
0.127
0.212
0.231
0.159
0.121
0.089
3.404
0.022
0.108
0.186
0.206
0.184
0.094
0.063
3.661
0.172
0.145
0.220
0.195
0.220
0.097
0.153
3.918
0.103
0.102
0.127
0.151
0.135
0.047
0.076
4.175
0.048
0.099
0.215
0.196
0.195
0.092
0.068
4.432
0.091
0.194
0.268
0.282
0.254
0.112
0.089
Continued
79
Table 9 continued
Nervous
Poor Mom
Relation
Poor Dad
Relation
Sexually
Active
Pregnancy
Unprotected
Sex
Multi Sex
Partners
Older Friends
Older Dating
Dating
Conflicts
Inflated
Abilities
Excessive
Self Worth
More
Deserving
Manipulates
Charming,
Insincere
Exaggerates
Abilities
Learning
Problems
Preoccupied
With Sex
Diff Keep Job
Job Resp.
Difficulty
Physical
Victimization
Sexual
Victimization
Neglect
Victim of
Crime
Bad
Dreams
Trouble
Sleeping
Lost
Interest
Moody/
Dep.
Appetite
Change
Panic
Attacks
Diff.
Breathing
0.179
0.071
0.117
0.235
0.237
0.180
0.097
0.091
0.135
0.098
0.119
0.209
0.180
0.131
0.035
0.072
0.077
0.196
0.138
0.207
0.155
0.143
0.081
0.185
0.046
0.057
0.007
0.105
0.087
0.163
0.056
0.076
0.135
0.190
0.145
0.147
0.185
0.171
0.067
0.183
0.115
0.206
0.141
0.172
0.168
0.191
0.075
0.192
0.237
0.203
0.203
0.263
0.175
0.185
0.235
0.183
0.197
0.183
0.203
0.211
0.109
0.155
0.196
0.165
0.133
0.229
0.173
0.220
0.195
0.266
0.127
0.245
0.162
0.194
0.235
0.260
0.257
0.278
0.109
0.232
0.140
0.105
0.145
0.184
0.207
0.220
0.125
0.136
0.135
0.067
0.141
0.194
0.197
0.220
0.108
0.126
0.188
0.091
0.196
0.237
0.306
0.214
0.149
0.089
0.240
0.183
0.247
0.320
0.279
0.331
0.116
0.203
0.321
0.232
0.265
0.166
0.303
0.290
0.149
0.251
0.300
0.116
0.296
0.188
0.284
0.197
0.181
0.115
0.160
0.214
0.164
0.199
0.163
0.228
0.114
0.193
0.128
0.066
0.121
0.121
0.106
0.046
0.081
0.040
0.142
0.025
0.099
0.134
0.151
0.049
0.060
0.081
0.208
0.156
0.213
0.164
0.174
0.270
0.205
0.135
0.092
0.088
0.174
0.003
0.107
0.114
0.025
0.042
0.188
0.116
0.142
0.070
0.176
0.177
0.197
0.096
0.210
0.222
0.325
0.224
0.237
0.249
0.168
0.203
Continued
80
Table 9 continued
Physically
Aggressive
Race
Age
No
Responsibility
No Guilt
Blames Othesr
Lies
Covers Up
Lack Belonging
Nervous
Bad Dreams
Trouble
Sleeping
Lost Interest
Moody/Dep.
Appetite
Change
Panic Attacks
Difficulty
Breathing
Physically
aggressive
Threatens
Tries to Get
Even
Academic
Difficulty
School
Behavior
Difficulty
Teacher
Conflict
Adult Youth
Conflict
Youth Not
Welcome
Youth at Risk
Harsh
Punishment
Uncontrollable
Threatens
Tries to
Get Even
Academic
Difficulty
0.148
-0.090
0.123
-0.095
0.204
-.090
0.001
-0.082
School
Behavior
Difficulty
0.184
-0.231
Teacher
Conflict
Youth Not
Welcome
0.191
-0.168
AdultYouth
Conflict
0.036
-0.106
0.350
0.376
0.396
0.400
0.463
0.394
0.442
0.211
0.350
0.318
0.350
0.385
0.287
0.253
0.215
0.409
0.384
0.378
0.446
0.283
0.233
0.184
0.395
0.421
0.379
0.439
0.280
0.221
0.222
0.352
0.376
0.293
0.324
0.373
0.138
0.051
0.433
0.412
0.399
0.413
0.392
0.192
0.088
0.393
0.392
0.378
0.401
0.353
0.176
0.037
0.422
0.435
0.382
0.345
0.305
0.173
0.022
0.227
0.186
0.251
0.248
0.201
0.124
0.172
0.227
0.223
0.251
0.181
0.151
0.127
0.108
0.145
0.249
0.333
0.281
0.332
0.333
0.341
0.199
0.226
0.202
0.247
0.212
0.231
0.186
0.206
0.220
0.195
0.302
0.294
0.346
0.184
0.214
0.159
0.184
0.220
0.179
0.238
0.159
0.073
0.092
0.121
0.094
0.097
0.205
0.255
0.230
0.054
0.086
0.089
0.063
0.153
0.620
0.533
0.218
0.380
0.383
0.353
0.275
0.620
0.568
0.236
0.370
0.415
0.398
0.251
0.533
0.568
0.186
0.339
0.389
0.329
0.218
0.218
0.236
0.186
0.511
0.409
0.357
0.133
0.380
0.370
0.339
0.511
0.617
0.399
0.184
0.383
0.415
0.389
0.409
0.617
0.392
0.161
0.353
0.398
0.329
0.357
0.399
0.392
0.380
0.275
0.251
0.218
0.133
0.184
0.161
0.380
0.280
0.245
0.220
0.140
0.167
0.198
0.272
0.444
0.223
0.221
0.238
0.256
0.326
0.276
0.438
0.342
0.370
0.409
0.352
0.342
0.414
0.420
0.471
0.280
0.100
0.002
Continued
81
Table 9 continued
Physically
Aggressive
Poor Mom
Relation
Poor Dad
Relation
Sexually
Active
Pregnancy
Unprotected
Sex
Multi Sex
Partners
Older Friends
Older Dating
Dating
Conflicts
Inflated
Abilities
Excessive
Self Worth
More
Deserving
Manipulates
Charming,
Insincere
Exaggerates
Abilities
Learning
Problems
Preoccupied
With Sex
Diff Keep Job
Job Resp.
Difficulty
Physical
Victimization
Sexual
Victimization
Neglect
Victim of
Crime
Threatens
Tries to
Get Even
Academic
Difficulty
School
Behavior
Difficulty
Teacher
Conflict
AdultYouth
Conflict
Youth Not
Welcome
0.301
0.265
0.251
0.276
0.310
0.297
0.487
0.426
0.261
0.275
0.193
0.228
0.296
0.299
0.321
0.234
0.205
0.181
0.192
0.024
0.070
0.100
0.015
0.169
0.085
0.073
0.113
-0.043
-0.009
-0.010
-0.040
0.053
0.143
0.126
0.165
0.038
0.030
0.069
0.016
0.145
0.167
0.154
0.189
-0.032
0.027
0.044
-0.043
0.111
0.234
0.160
0.219
0.179
0.274
0.237
0.092
0.004
0.211
0.088
0.228
0.087
0.156
0.034
0.189
0.138
0.224
0.196
0.274
0.076
0.078
0.119
0.047
0.122
0.299
0.325
0.421
0.093
0.143
0.204
0.256
0.218
0.313
0.325
0.389
0.096
0.209
0.234
0.248
0.150
0.312
0.358
0.410
0.113
0.192
0.252
0.287
0.208
0.367
0.420
0.403
0.301
0.378
0.350
0.362
0.193
0.328
0.378
0.442
0.199
0.291
0.300
0.261
0.167
0.291
0.361
0.404
0.141
0.264
0.243
0.197
0.154
0.165
0.193
0.216
0.382
0.341
0.253
0.202
0.053
0.217
0.165
0.237
0.078
0.134
0.128
0.121
0.192
0.057
0.065
0.046
0.071
0.063
0.056
0.038
0.150
0.059
0.101
0.079
0.095
0.068
0.066
0.062
0.118
0.253
0.244
0.276
0.097
0.137
0.169
0.217
0.224
0.053
0.079
0.101
0.073
0.093
0.050
0.098
0.013
0.187
0.187
0.200
0.132
0.201
0.209
0.193
0.181
0.225
0.191
0.211
0.099
0.109
0.097
0.069
0.111
Continued
82
Table 9 continued
Race
Age
No
Responsibility
No Guilt
Blames Othesr
Lies
Covers Up
Lack Belonging
Nervous
Bad Dreams
Trouble
Sleeping
Lost Interest
Moody/Dep.
Appetite
Change
Panic Attacks
Difficulty
Breathing
Physically
aggressive
Threatens
Tries to Get
Even
Academic
Difficulty
School
Behavior
Difficulty
Teacher
Conflict
Adult Youth
Conflict
Youth Not
Welcome
Youth at Risk
Harsh
Punishment
Uncontrollable
Youth
at Risk
0.081
-.059
Harsh
Punishment
0.043
-0.039
Poor
Mom Rel.
0.078
-.113
Poor
Dad Rel.
0.060
-.015
Sexually
Active
0.152
-0.064
0.165
0.341
0.483
0.394
0.159
0.223
0.181
0.195
0.146
0.108
0.103
0.354
0.355
0.331
0.333
0.279
0.180
0.048
0.486
0.429
0.403
0.396
0.305
0.257
0.091
0.102
0.099
0.127
0.151
Pregnancy
0.163
0.293
Unprotected
Sex
0.106
0.171
Multi Sex
Partners
0.142
0.219
0.363
0.092
-0.007
0.055
0.348
0.327
0.392
0.353
0.287
0.179
0.071
0.348
0.293
0.304
0.293
0.225
0.135
0.098
0.126
0.032
0.215
0.204
0.073
0.077
0.196
0.018
-0.042
0.083
0.079
0.063
0.046
0.057
0.079
-0.018
0.178
0.143
0.077
0.135
0.190
0.194
0.117
0.119
0.138
0.007
0.145
0.215
0.196
0.268
0.282
0.235
0.237
0.209
0.180
0.207
0.155
0.105
0.087
0.147
0.185
0.135
0.195
0.254
0.180
0.131
0.143
0.163
0.171
0.047
0.092
0.112
0.097
0.035
0.081
0.056
0.067
0.076
0.068
0.089
0.091
0.072
0.185
0.076
0.183
0.280
0.223
0.370
0.301
0.261
0.205
0.085
0.143
0.245
0.221
0.409
0.265
0.275
0.181
0.073
0.126
0.220
0.238
0.352
0.251
0.193
0.192
0.113
0.165
0.140
0.256
0.342
0.276
0.228
0.024
-0.043
0.038
0.167
0.326
0.414
0.310
0.296
0.070
-0.009
0.030
0.198
0.276
0.420
0.297
0.299
0.100
-0.010
0.069
0.272
0.438
0.471
0.487
0.321
0.015
-0.040
0.016
0.444
0.342
0.280
0.426
0.234
0.169
0.053
0.145
0.360
0.333
0.321
0.141
0.093
0.039
0.089
0.360
0.457
0.344
0.234
0.041
-0.022
0.010
0.333
0.457
0.420
0.350
0.020
-0.029
-0.015
Continued
83
Table 9 continued
Youth at
Risk
Poor Mom
Relation
Poor Dad
Relation
Sexually
Active
Pregnancy
Unprotected
Sex
Multi Sex
Partners
Older Friends
Older Dating
Dating
Conflicts
Inflated
Abilities
Excessive
Self Worth
More
Deserving
Manipulates
Charming,
Insincere
Exaggerates
Abilities
Learning
Problems
Preoccupied
With Sex
Diff Keep Job
Job Resp.
Difficulty
Physical
Victimization
Sexual
Victimization
Neglect
Victim of
Crime
Harsh
Punishment
Poor
Mom Rel.
Poor
Dad Rel.
Sexually
Active
Pregnancy
Unprotected
Sex
Multi Sex
Partners
0.321
0.344
0.420
0.370
0.138
0.049
0.100
0.141
0.234
0.350
0.370
0.140
0.089
0.145
0.093
0.041
0.020
0.138
0.140
0.231
0.604
0.039
-0.022
-0.029
0.049
0.089
0.231
0.372
0.089
0.010
-0.015
0.100
0.145
0.604
0.372
0.043
0.008
-0.052
0.076
0.130
0.675
0.349
0.647
0.160
0.179
0.173
0.050
0.169
0.012
0.201
0.106
0.211
0.145
0.431
0.437
0.218
0.289
0.355
0.437
0.082
0.031
0.039
0.098
0.179
0.349
0.202
0.326
0.154
0.218
0.184
0.187
0.173
0.247
0.109
0.161
0.190
0.201
0.204
0.167
0.150
0.170
0.079
0.104
0.213
0.216
0.224
0.173
0.132
0.121
0.063
0.081
0.196
0.310
0.380
0.317
0.203
0.057
0.020
0.072
0.186
0.275
0.257
0.267
0.181
0.239
0.131
0.193
0.147
0.166
0.203
0.160
0.184
0.165
0.093
0.133
0.059
0.168
0.268
0.127
0.124
0.023
-0.002
0.059
0.142
0.172
0.137
0.172
0.125
0.385
0.186
0.373
0.053
0.075
0.103
0.116
0.091
0.078
0.023
0.073
-0.005
0.113
0.147
0.155
0.157
0.063
0.051
0.060
0.249
0.175
0.206
0.245
0.166
0.070
0.049
0.103
-0.001
0.072
0.072
0.098
0.051
0.029
0.051
0.048
0.209
0.126
0.155
0.233
0.166
0.018
0.067
0.042
0.039
0.081
0.126
0.107
0.115
0.231
0.138
0.263
Continued
84
Table 9 continued
Race
Age
No
Responsibility
No Guilt
Blames Othesr
Lies
Covers Up
Lack Belonging
Nervous
Bad Dreams
Trouble
Sleeping
Lost Interest
Moody/Dep.
Appetite
Change
Panic Attacks
Difficulty
Breathing
Physically
aggressive
Threatens
Tries to Get
Even
Academic
Difficulty
School
Behavior
Difficulty
Teacher
Conflict
Adult Youth
Conflict
Youth Not
Welcome
Youth at Risk
Harsh
Punishment
Uncontrollable
Older
Friends
0.241
0.073
Older
Dating
0.159
0.135
Dating
Conflicts
0.122
0.168
Inflated
Abilities
0.140
0.011
Excessive
Self Worth
0.155
-0.085
More
Deserving
0.112
-0.077
Manipulates
Others
0.132
-0.117
Charming
Insincere
0.172
-0.003
0.197
0.062
0.086
0.247
0.283
0.311
0.494
0.371
0.282
0.125
0.294
0.268
0.141
0.237
0.203
0.105
0.005
0.187
0.166
0.062
0.203
0.263
0.148
0.008
0.161
0.152
0.051
0.133
0.229
0.254
0.262
0.315
0.286
0.217
0.162
0.194
0.298
0.328
0.349
0.296
0.177
0.140
0.105
0.272
0.349
0.312
0.314
0.177
0.135
0.067
0.447
0.488
0.449
0.461
0.314
0.188
0.091
0.385
0.354
0.458
0.448
0.286
0.240
0.183
0.175
0.185
0.173
0.235
0.145
0.141
0.196
0.247
0.235
0.197
0.183
0.183
0.220
0.195
0.260
0.257
0.184
0.207
0.194
0.197
0.237
0.306
0.320
0.279
0.203
0.211
0.266
0.278
0.220
0.220
0.214
0.331
0.109
0.155
0.127
0.109
0.125
0.108
0.149
0.116
0.196
0.165
0.245
0.232
0.136
0.126
0.089
0.203
0.234
0.160
0.224
0.299
0.313
0.312
0.367
0.328
0.219
0.179
0.196
0.325
0.325
0.358
0.420
0.378
0.274
0.237
0.274
0.421
0.389
0.410
0.403
0.442
0.092
0.004
0.076
0.093
0.096
0.113
0.301
0.199
0.211
0.088
0.078
0.143
0.209
0.192
0.378
0.291
0.228
0.087
0.119
0.204
0.234
0.252
0.350
0.300
0.156
0.034
0.047
0.256
0.248
0.287
0.362
0.261
0.189
0.138
0.122
0.218
0.150
0.208
0.193
0.167
0.160
0.179
0.082
0.154
0.190
0.213
0.196
0.186
0.173
0.050
0.031
0.218
0.201
0.216
0.310
0.275
0.169
0.012
0.039
0.184
0.204
0.224
0.380
0.257
Continued
85
Table 9 continued
Older
Friends
Poor Mom
Relation
Poor Dad
Relation
Sexually
Active
Pregnancy
Unprotected
Sex
Multi Sex
Partners
Older Friends
Older Dating
Dating
Conflicts
Inflated
Abilities
Excessive
Self Worth
More
Deserving
Manipulates
Charming,
Insincere
Exaggerates
Abilities
Learning
Problems
Preoccupied
With Sex
Diff Keep Job
Job Resp.
Difficulty
Physical
Victimization
Sexual
Victimization
Neglect
Victim of
Crime
Older
Dating
Dating
Conflicts
Inflated
Abilities
Excessive
Self Worth
More
Deserving
Manipulates
Others
Charming
Insincere
0.201
0.106
0.098
0.187
0.167
0.173
0.317
0.267
0.211
0.145
0.179
0.173
0.150
0.132
0.203
0.181
0.431
0.437
0.349
0.247
0.170
0.121
0.057
0.239
0.218
0.289
0.202
0.109
0.079
0.063
0.020
0.131
0.355
0.437
0.326
0.161
0.104
0.081
0.072
0.193
0.381
0.433
0.361
0.273
0.190
0.146
0.026
0.228
1
0.439
0.439
1
0.324
0.356
0.285
0.128
0.194
0.127
0.140
0.100
0.146
0.082
0.321
0.224
0.324
0.356
0.237
0.114
0.112
0.069
0.260
0.285
0.128
0.237
0.561
0.554
0.270
0.465
0.194
0.127
0.114
0.561
0.657
0.385
0.425
0.140
0.100
0.112
0.554
0.657
0.417
0.400
0.146
0.082
0.069
0.270
0.385
0.417
0.573
0.321
0.224
0.260
0.465
0.425
0.400
0.573
0.285
0.170
0.193
0.483
0.408
0.415
0.306
0.392
0.113
0.064
0.092
0.112
0.090
0.081
0.228
0.191
0.275
0.274
0.224
0.243
0.171
0.159
0.247
0.322
0.032
0.087
0.113
0.076
0.017
0.034
0.061
0.098
0.037
0.002
0.054
0.074
0.059
0.081
0.164
0.125
0.115
0.169
0.110
0.185
0.152
0.147
0.181
0.216
0.047
0.092
0.048
0.075
0.090
0.095
0.156
0.165
0.055
0.080
0.080
0.120
0.121
0.106
0.183
0.165
0.187
0.246
0.241
0.201
0.108
0.094
0.164
0.232
Continued
86
Table 9 continued
Exaggerates
Abilities
Race
Age
No
Responsibility
No Guilt
Blames Othesr
Lies
Covers Up
Lack Belonging
Nervous
Bad Dreams
Trouble
Sleeping
Lost Interest
Moody/Dep.
Appetite
Change
Panic Attacks
Difficulty
Breathing
Physically
aggressive
Threatens
Tries to Get
Even
Academic
Difficulty
School
Behavior
Difficulty
Teacher
Conflict
Adult Youth
Conflict
Youth Not
Welcome
Youth at Risk
Harsh
Punishment
Uncontrollable
Learning
Problems
Preocc.
w/ Sex
0.218
-0.065
0.035
-0.064
0.140
0.083
Diff.
Keep
Job
-.008
0.142
0.325
0.232
0.183
0.118
0.375
0.312
0.336
0.372
0.205
0.321
0.232
0.241
0.236
0.207
0.193
0.304
0.300
0.116
0.182
0.106
0.237
0.247
0.136
0.160
0.214
0.265
0.296
0.166
0.303
Job
Resp.
Diff
-.014
0.115
Physical
Victim
Sexual
Victim
Neglect
Victim
Crime
0.001
0.025
0.031
0.000
0.096
-0.044
0.074
0.097
0.170
0.118
0.091
0.185
0.117
0.068
0.067
0.104
0.108
0.117
0.128
0.066
0.164
0.106
0.121
0.145
0.154
0.142
0.025
0.157
0.129
0.115
0.150
0.161
0.208
0.156
0.071
0.090
0.074
0.067
0.003
0.092
0.088
0.176
0.176
0.193
0.186
0.198
0.188
0.116
0.156
0.092
0.188
0.195
0.102
0.210
0.222
0.164
0.121
0.099
0.213
0.174
0.142
0.325
0.188
0.284
0.199
0.163
0.121
0.106
0.134
0.151
0.164
0.174
0.003
0.107
0.070
0.176
0.224
0.237
0.290
0.197
0.228
0.046
0.049
0.270
0.114
0.177
0.249
0.149
0.181
0.114
0.081
0.060
0.205
0.025
0.197
0.168
0.251
0.115
0.193
0.040
0.081
0.135
0.042
0.096
0.203
0.291
0.165
0.217
0.057
0.059
0.253
0.053
0.187
0.225
0.361
0.193
0.165
0.065
0.101
0.244
0.079
0.187
0.191
0.404
0.216
0.237
0.046
0.079
0.276
0.101
0.200
0.211
0.141
0.382
0.078
0.071
0.095
0.097
0.073
0.132
0.099
0.264
0.341
0.134
0.063
0.068
0.137
0.093
0.201
0.109
0.243
0.253
0.128
0.056
0.066
0.169
0.050
0.209
0.097
0.197
0.202
0.121
0.038
0.062
0.217
0.098
0.193
0.069
0.154
0.053
0.192
0.150
0.118
0.224
0.013
0.181
0.111
0.147
0.059
0.142
0.053
-.005
0.249
-0.001
0.209
0.039
0.166
0.168
0.172
0.075
0.113
0.175
0.072
0.126
0.081
0.203
0.268
0.137
0.103
0.147
0.206
0.072
0.155
0.126
Continued
87
Table 9 continued
Exaggerates
Abilities
Poor Mom
Relation
Poor Dad
Relation
Sexually Active
Pregnancy
Unprotected
Sex
Multi Sex
Partners
Older Friends
Older Dating
Dating Conflicts
Inflated Abilities
Excessive Self
Worth
More Deserving
Manipulates
Charming,
Insincere
Exaggerates
Abilities
Learning
Problems
Preoccupied
With Sex
Diff Keep Job
Job Resp.
Difficulty
Physical
Victimization
Sexual
Victimization
Neglect
Victim of Crime
Learning
Problems
Preocc.
w/ Sex
Diff.
Keep
Job
Job
Resp.
Diff
Physical
Victim
Sexual
Victim
Neglect
Victim
Crime
0.160
0.127
0.172
0.116
0.155
0.245
0.098
0.233
0.107
0.184
0.124
0.125
0.091
0.157
0.166
0.051
0.166
0.115
0.165
0.093
0.023
-0.002
0.385
0.186
0.078
0.023
0.063
0.051
0.070
0.049
0.029
0.051
0.018
0.067
0.231
0.138
0.133
0.059
0.373
0.073
0.060
0.103
0.048
0.042
0.263
0.215
0.017
0.340
0.039
0.057
0.078
0.041
0.049
0.247
0.285
0.170
0.193
0.483
0.113
0.064
0.092
0.112
0.275
0.274
0.224
0.243
0.032
0.087
0.113
0.076
0.037
0.002
0.054
0.074
0.115
0.169
0.110
0.185
0.047
0.092
0.048
0.075
0.055
0.080
0.080
0.120
0.187
0.246
0.241
0.201
0.408
0.090
0.171
0.017
0.059
0.152
0.090
0.121
0.108
0.415
0.306
0.081
0.228
0.159
0.247
0.034
0.061
0.081
0.164
0.147
0.181
0.095
0.156
0.106
0.183
0.094
0.164
0.392
0.191
0.322
0.098
0.125
0.216
0.165
0.165
0.232
0.197
0.189
0.053
0.079
0.162
0.027
0.125
0.177
0.197
0.125
0.118
0.078
0.150
0.087
0.124
0.083
0.189
0.125
0.071
0.082
0.134
0.112
0.118
0.184
0.053
0.118
0.071
0.550
0.062
-0.031
0.105
0.075
0.079
0.078
0.082
0.550
0.019
-0.010
0.085
0.026
0.162
0.150
0.134
0.062
0.019
0.328
0.517
0.353
0.027
0.087
0.112
-.031
-.010
0.328
0.193
0.281
0.125
0.177
0.124
0.083
0.118
0.184
0.105
0.075
0.085
0.026
0.517
0.353
0.193
0.281
1
0.230
0.230
1
88
Race
Race
Age
No
Responsibility
No Guilt
Blames Othesr
Lies
Covers Up
Lack Belonging
Nervous
Bad Dreams
Trouble Sleeping
Lost Interest
Moody/Dep.
Appetite Change
Panic Attacks
Difficulty
Breathing
Physically
aggressive
Threatens
Tries to Get
Even
Academic
Difficulty
School Behavior
Difficulty
Teacher Conflict
Adult Youth
Conflict
Youth Not
Welcome
Youth at Risk
Harsh
Punishment
Uncontrollable
Age
No Respons.
No Guilt
1
-0.030
-0.030
1
0.035
-0.121
0.153
-0.031
Blames
Others
0.092
-0.069
Lies
0.138
-.011
Covers
Up
0.185
-0.012
Lack
Belonging
-0.062
-0.009
0.035
-0.121
0.646
0.585
0.624
0.602
0.343
0.153
0.092
0.138
0.185
-0.062
0.053
0.055
0.029
0.088
0.100
0.114
-0.013
-0.031
-0.069
-0.011
-0.012
-0.009
0.014
0.053
0.038
0.009
0.009
0.073
0.036
0.646
0.585
0.624
0.602
0.343
0.154
0.045
0.084
0.215
0.206
0.042
0.061
1
0.527
0.639
0.580
0.251
0.216
0.149
0.156
0.269
0.285
0.172
0.087
0.527
1
0.455
0.535
0.331
0.173
0.039
0.081
0.224
0.233
0.073
0.054
0.639
0.455
1
0.659
0.260
0.239
0.125
0.140
0.261
0.271
0.181
0.093
0.580
0.535
0.659
1
0.267
0.247
0.190
0.148
0.242
0.253
0.176
0.106
0.251
0.331
0.260
0.267
1
0.236
0.220
0.228
0.307
0.318
0.210
0.213
0.060
0.075
0.015
0.050
0.018
0.099
0.093
0.156
0.182
-0.047
0.299
0.341
0.320
0.372
0.339
0.199
0.158
-0.055
0.324
0.371
0.311
0.341
0.339
0.267
0.164
-0.061
0.322
0.386
0.329
0.365
0.357
0.227
-0.047
0.006
0.370
0.269
0.307
0.312
0.253
0.285
0.069
-0.108
0.476
0.423
0.373
0.430
0.385
0.269
0.100
-0.135
0.332
0.342
0.275
0.346
0.316
0.257
0.107
0.010
0.419
0.429
0.349
0.420
0.406
0.292
0.180
0.017
0.143
0.242
0.183
0.175
0.202
0.179
0.033
-0.014
0.069
0.039
0.101
0.099
0.133
0.091
0.085
-0.102
0.321
0.338
0.276
0.328
0.377
0.167
0.127
-0.016
0.473
0.496
0.431
0.482
0.469
0.249
Continued
Table 10. Correlation Matrix, Girls
89
Table 10 continued
Nervous
Race
Age
No
Responsibility
No Guilt
Blames Others
Lies
Covers Up
Lack Belonging
Nervous
Bad Dreams
Trouble
Sleeping
Lost Interest
Moody/Dep.
Appetite Change
Panic Attacks
Difficulty
Breathing
Physically
aggressive
Threatens
Tries to Get
Even
Academic
Difficulty
School Behavior
Difficulty
Teacher Conflict
Adult Youth
Conflict
Youth Not
Welcome
Youth at Risk
Harsh
Punishment
Uncontrollable
0.053
0.014
Bad
Dreams
0.055
0.053
Trouble
Sleeping
0.029
0.038
Lost
Interest
0.088
0.009
Moody/
Dep.
0.100
0.009
Appetite
Change
0.114
0.073
Panic
Attacks
-0.013
0.036
Diff.
Breathing
0.060
0.075
0.154
0.045
0.084
0.215
0.206
0.042
0.061
0.015
0.216
0.173
0.239
0.247
0.236
1
0.458
0.149
0.039
0.125
0.190
0.220
0.458
1
0.156
0.081
0.140
0.148
0.228
0.424
0.574
0.269
0.224
0.261
0.242
0.307
0.410
0.462
0.285
0.233
0.271
0.253
0.318
0.476
0.500
0.172
0.073
0.181
0.176
0.210
0.386
0.543
0.087
0.054
0.093
0.106
0.213
0.408
0.370
0.050
0.018
0.099
0.093
0.156
0.371
0.480
0.424
0.574
0.512
0.522
0.512
0.434
0.466
0.410
0.476
0.386
0.408
0.462
0.500
0.543
0.370
0.512
0.522
0.512
0.434
1
0.584
0.474
0.367
0.584
1
0.504
0.373
0.474
0.504
1
0.389
0.367
0.373
0.389
1
0.460
0.446
0.476
0.527
0.371
0.480
0.466
0.460
0.446
0.476
0.527
0.223
0.157
0.211
0.299
0.243
0.244
0.199
0.163
0.271
0.210
0.259
0.315
0.335
0.289
0.247
0.200
0.298
0.278
0.304
0.381
0.361
0.310
0.206
0.194
0.184
0.089
0.168
0.219
0.229
0.093
0.121
0.073
0.217
0.140
0.207
0.247
0.251
0.185
0.135
0.113
0.172
0.157
0.182
0.256
0.249
0.187
0.146
0.149
0.189
0.229
0.251
0.323
0.316
0.210
0.146
0.195
0.214
0.295
0.257
0.305
0.343
0.292
0.188
0.255
0.155
0.164
0.196
0.216
0.194
0.149
0.158
0.227
0.120
0.067
0.101
0.160
0.133
0.096
0.106
0.097
0.166
0.110
0.167
0.267
0.243
0.212
0.136
0.100
Continued
90
Table 10 continued
Nervous
Poor Mom
Relation
Poor Dad
Relation
Sexually
Active
Pregnancy
Unprotected
Sex
Multi Sex
Partners
Older Friends
Older Dating
Dating
Conflicts
Inflated
Abilities
Excessive
Self Worth
More
Deserving
Manipulates
Charming,
Insincere
Exaggerates
Abilities
Learning
Problems
Preoccupied
With Sex
Diff Keep Job
Job Resp.
Difficulty
Physical
Victimization
Sexual
Victimization
Neglect
Victim of
Crime
Bad
Dreams
Trouble
Sleeping
Lost
Interest
Moody/
Dep.
Appetite
Change
Panic
Attacks
Diff.
Breathing
0.203
0.261
0.235
0.340
0.337
0.275
0.106
0.164
0.182
0.191
0.213
0.259
0.249
0.230
0.147
0.176
0.218
0.276
0.277
0.344
0.315
0.281
0.145
0.245
0.101
0.117
0.124
0.138
0.161
0.161
0.134
0.107
0.177
0.202
0.260
0.295
0.285
0.212
0.120
0.239
0.206
0.209
0.230
0.267
0.297
0.215
0.128
0.217
0.239
0.210
0.288
0.199
0.298
0.224
0.347
0.296
0.353
0.283
0.342
0.254
0.098
0.125
0.227
0.152
0.305
0.246
0.255
0.328
0.287
0.264
0.221
0.266
0.200
0.243
0.204
0.239
0.231
0.261
0.127
0.162
0.134
0.118
0.085
0.164
0.198
0.091
0.044
0.050
0.110
0.117
0.085
0.185
0.166
0.105
0.053
0.031
0.206
0.135
0.155
0.287
0.281
0.121
0.103
0.033
0.229
0.177
0.161
0.293
0.300
0.206
0.075
0.122
0.290
0.254
0.251
0.322
0.323
0.280
0.215
0.161
0.320
0.235
0.243
0.212
0.302
0.105
0.236
0.132
0.170
0.065
0.115
0.216
0.157
0.102
0.109
0.077
0.082
0.130
0.068
0.111
0.140
0.046
0.147
0.147
0.058
0.124
0.089
0.140
0.149
0.112
0.105
0.097
0.309
0.273
0.338
0.335
0.326
0.261
0.253
0.254
0.243
0.242
0.254
0.193
0.266
0.192
0.220
0.212
0.201
0.292
0.276
0.238
0.272
0.255
0.156
0.179
0.277
0.252
0.251
0.228
0.296
0.198
0.232
0.219
Continued
91
Table 10 continued
Physically
Aggressive
Race
Age
No
Responsibility
No Guilt
Blames Others
Lies
Covers Up
Lack Belonging
Nervous
Bad Dreams
Trouble
Sleeping
Lost Interest
Moody/Dep.
Appetite
Change
Panic Attacks
Difficulty
Breathing
Physically
aggressive
Threatens
Tries to Get
Even
Academic
Difficulty
School
Behavior
Difficulty
Teacher
Conflict
Adult Youth
Conflict
Youth Not
Welcome
Youth at Risk
Harsh
Punishment
Uncontrollable
Threatens
0.182
-0.047
0.158
-0.055
Tries
to
Get
Even
0.164
-.061
0.299
0.324
0.341
0.320
0.372
0.339
0.199
0.223
0.157
Academic
Difficulty
School
Behavior
Difficulty
Teacher
Conflict
AdultYouth
Conflict
Youth Not
Welcome
-0.047
0.006
0.069
-0.108
0.100
-0.135
0.107
0.010
0.180
0.017
0.322
0.370
0.476
0.332
0.419
0.143
0.371
0.311
0.341
0.339
0.267
0.271
0.210
0.386
0.329
0.365
0.357
0.227
0.298
0.278
0.269
0.307
0.312
0.253
0.285
0.184
0.089
0.423
0.373
0.430
0.385
0.269
0.217
0.140
0.342
0.275
0.346
0.316
0.257
0.172
0.157
0.429
0.349
0.420
0.406
0.292
0.189
0.229
0.242
0.183
0.175
0.202
0.179
0.214
0.295
0.211
0.259
0.304
0.168
0.207
0.182
0.251
0.257
0.299
0.243
0.315
0.335
0.381
0.361
0.219
0.229
0.247
0.251
0.256
0.249
0.323
0.316
0.305
0.343
0.244
0.289
0.310
0.093
0.185
0.187
0.210
0.292
0.199
0.247
0.206
0.121
0.135
0.146
0.146
0.188
0.163
0.200
0.194
0.073
0.113
0.149
0.195
0.255
0.665
0.472
0.137
0.412
0.400
0.355
0.280
0.665
0.544
0.180
0.430
0.428
0.371
0.283
0.472
0.544
0.143
0.330
0.354
0.333
0.286
0.137
0.180
0.143
0.476
0.353
0.298
0.057
0.412
0.430
0.330
0.476
0.609
0.417
0.187
0.400
0.428
0.354
0.353
0.609
0.316
0.236
0.355
0.371
0.333
0.298
0.417
0.316
0.429
0.280
0.283
0.286
0.057
0.187
0.236
0.429
0.153
0.244
0.185
0.045
0.156
0.160
0.207
0.352
0.189
0.207
0.171
0.204
0.252
0.173
0.321
0.270
0.343
0.364
0.338
0.251
0.407
0.322
0.539
0.322
Continued
92
Table 10 continued
Physically
Aggressive
Poor Mom
Relation
Poor Dad
Relation
Sexually
Active
Pregnancy
Unprotected
Sex
Multi Sex
Partners
Older Friends
Older Dating
Dating
Conflicts
Inflated
Abilities
Excessive
Self Worth
More
Deserving
Manipulates
Charming,
Insincere
Exaggerates
Abilities
Learning
Problems
Preoccupied
With Sex
Diff Keep Job
Job Resp.
Difficulty
Physical
Victimization
Sexual
Victimization
Neglect
Victim of
Crime
Threatens
Tries to
Get Even
Academic
Difficulty
School
Behavior
Difficulty
Teacher
Conflict
AdultYouth
Conflict
Youth Not
Welcome
0.299
0.321
0.296
0.156
0.319
0.277
0.492
0.464
0.252
0.218
0.187
0.215
0.252
0.214
0.352
0.276
0.254
0.254
0.266
0.173
0.253
0.175
0.319
0.311
0.055
0.076
0.093
0.059
0.024
-0.008
0.045
0.108
0.206
0.210
0.229
0.155
0.198
0.143
0.237
0.237
0.252
0.263
0.229
0.135
0.144
0.162
0.202
0.247
0.330
0.309
0.298
0.302
0.376
0.276
0.151
0.185
0.279
0.206
0.241
0.194
0.355
0.210
0.329
0.308
0.244
0.251
0.264
0.091
0.156
0.156
0.174
0.192
0.343
0.347
0.407
0.015
0.231
0.271
0.258
0.241
0.300
0.316
0.379
0.043
0.232
0.305
0.205
0.269
0.257
0.290
0.412
0.023
0.245
0.285
0.173
0.191
0.327
0.391
0.431
0.244
0.339
0.299
0.335
0.178
0.356
0.349
0.418
0.159
0.337
0.249
0.293
0.236
0.380
0.377
0.425
0.130
0.330
0.324
0.256
0.315
0.188
0.155
0.177
0.348
0.306
0.159
0.155
0.098
0.225
0.202
0.174
0.190
0.239
0.125
0.254
0.155
0.124
0.136
0.059
0.145
0.146
0.126
0.073
0.068
0.100
0.154
0.132
0.143
0.141
0.122
0.094
0.058
0.265
0.311
0.273
0.085
0.183
0.148
0.250
0.273
0.181
0.224
0.201
0.053
0.184
0.149
0.172
0.169
0.200
0.230
0.236
0.100
0.218
0.188
0.178
0.191
0.235
0.295
0.258
0.092
0.172
0.171
0.159
0.140
Continued
93
Table 10 continued
Youth
at Risk
Race
Age
No
Responsibility
No Guilt
Blames Others
Lies
Covers Up
Lack Belonging
Nervous
Bad Dreams
Trouble
Sleeping
Lost Interest
Moody/Dep.
Appetite
Change
Panic Attacks
Difficulty
Breathing
Physically
aggressive
Threatens
Tries to Get
Even
Academic
Difficulty
School
Behavior
Difficulty
Teacher
Conflict
Adult Youth
Conflict
Youth Not
Welcome
Youth at Risk
Harsh
Punishment
Uncontrollable
Harsh
Punishment
0.033
-.014
0.085
-0.102
Poor
Mom
Rel.
0.127
-.016
0.069
0.321
0.473
0.039
0.101
0.099
0.133
0.091
0.155
0.164
0.338
0.276
0.328
0.377
0.167
0.120
0.067
0.196
Poor
Dad
Rel.
0.167
0.024
Sexually
Active
Pregnancy
Unprotected
Sex
Multi Sex
Partners
0.087
0.049
0.130
0.240
0.080
0.115
0.084
0.190
0.300
0.223
0.224
0.090
0.231
0.496
0.431
0.482
0.469
0.249
0.166
0.110
0.359
0.299
0.345
0.331
0.255
0.203
0.261
0.263
0.207
0.291
0.307
0.232
0.182
0.191
0.309
0.219
0.349
0.312
0.182
0.218
0.276
0.080
0.078
0.092
0.057
0.014
0.101
0.117
0.274
0.277
0.280
0.282
0.190
0.177
0.202
0.101
0.167
0.235
0.213
0.277
0.124
0.260
0.216
0.194
0.160
0.133
0.267
0.243
0.340
0.337
0.259
0.249
0.344
0.315
0.138
0.161
0.295
0.285
0.149
0.096
0.212
0.275
0.230
0.281
0.161
0.212
0.158
0.106
0.136
0.106
0.147
0.145
0.134
0.120
0.227
0.097
0.100
0.164
0.176
0.245
0.107
0.239
0.153
0.189
0.343
0.299
0.252
0.254
0.055
0.206
0.244
0.207
0.364
0.321
0.218
0.254
0.076
0.210
0.185
0.171
0.338
0.296
0.187
0.266
0.093
0.229
0.045
0.204
0.251
0.156
0.215
0.173
0.059
0.155
0.156
0.252
0.407
0.319
0.252
0.253
0.024
0.198
0.160
0.173
0.322
0.277
0.214
0.175
-0.008
0.143
0.207
0.321
0.539
0.492
0.352
0.319
0.045
0.237
0.352
0.270
0.322
0.464
0.276
0.311
0.108
0.237
0.287
0.172
0.164
0.224
0.150
0.027
0.167
0.287
0.393
0.296
0.284
0.116
0.033
0.069
0.172
0.393
0.440
0.299
0.325
0.062
0.270
Continued
94
Table 10 continued
Youth at
Risk
Poor Mom
Relation
Poor Dad
Relation
Sexually
Active
Pregnancy
Unprotected
Sex
Multi Sex
Partners
Older Friends
Older Dating
Dating
Conflicts
Inflated
Abilities
Excessive
Self Worth
More
Deserving
Manipulates
Charming,
Insincere
Exaggerates
Abilities
Learning
Problems
Preoccupied
With Sex
Diff Keep Job
Job Resp.
Difficulty
Physical
Victimization
Sexual
Victimization
Neglect
Victim of
Crime
Harsh
Punishment
Poor
Mom
Rel.
Poor
Dad Rel.
Sexually
Active
Pregnancy
Unprotected
Sex
Multi Sex
Partners
0.164
0.296
0.440
0.352
0.324
0.124
0.225
0.224
0.284
0.299
0.352
0.261
0.077
0.158
0.150
0.116
0.325
0.324
0.261
0.295
0.675
0.027
0.033
0.062
0.124
0.077
0.295
0.369
0.167
0.069
0.270
0.225
0.158
0.675
0.369
0.162
0.063
0.284
0.191
0.158
0.575
0.260
0.578
0.163
0.125
0.196
0.098
0.314
0.279
0.354
0.289
0.264
0.245
0.474
0.444
0.145
0.183
0.346
0.391
0.153
0.103
0.168
0.212
0.191
0.387
0.219
0.336
0.176
0.100
0.197
0.236
0.218
0.247
0.054
0.177
0.151
0.096
0.220
0.220
0.188
0.281
0.052
0.187
0.109
0.122
0.218
0.236
0.177
0.208
0.041
0.127
0.090
0.159
0.338
0.298
0.196
0.288
0.073
0.247
0.158
0.162
0.329
0.269
0.186
0.297
0.073
0.293
0.206
0.188
0.316
0.259
0.180
0.210
-0.001
0.181
0.101
0.051
0.149
0.105
0.065
0.177
0.051
0.170
0.117
0.124
0.273
0.220
0.170
0.414
0.141
0.447
0.063
-0.002
0.088
0.074
0.122
0.140
0.108
0.156
-0.019
0.034
0.109
0.089
0.067
0.110
0.128
0.106
0.366
0.220
0.198
0.259
0.193
0.269
0.053
0.229
0.200
0.140
0.170
0.202
0.108
0.281
0.053
0.260
0.195
0.137
0.121
0.248
0.160
0.207
0.107
0.193
0.210
0.128
0.214
0.182
0.104
0.255
0.121
0.236
Continued
95
Table 10 continued
Race
Age
No
Responsibility
No Guilt
Blames Others
Lies
Covers Up
Lack Belonging
Nervous
Bad Dreams
Trouble
Sleeping
Lost Interest
Moody/Dep.
Appetite
Change
Panic Attacks
Difficulty
Breathing
Physically
aggressive
Threatens
Tries to Get
Even
Academic
Difficulty
School
Behavior
Difficulty
Teacher
Conflict
Adult Youth
Conflict
Youth Not
Welcome
Youth at Risk
Harsh
Punishment
Uncontrollable
Older
Friends
0.206
0.047
Older
Dating
0.139
0.100
Dating
Conflicts
0.130
0.130
Inflated
Abilities
0.103
0.044
Excessive
Self Worth
0.110
-0.011
More
Deserving
0.110
-0.053
Manipulates
Others
0.045
-0.063
Charming
Insincere
0.092
-0.041
0.229
0.179
0.061
0.203
0.225
0.251
0.479
0.431
0.340
0.212
0.345
0.308
0.182
0.239
0.288
0.267
0.205
0.308
0.239
0.140
0.210
0.199
0.175
0.166
0.220
0.216
0.156
0.305
0.246
0.260
0.210
0.271
0.250
0.190
0.200
0.243
0.313
0.283
0.250
0.257
0.168
0.134
0.118
0.300
0.272
0.271
0.259
0.147
0.110
0.117
0.399
0.486
0.462
0.409
0.297
0.206
0.135
0.440
0.428
0.484
0.417
0.290
0.229
0.177
0.298
0.224
0.255
0.204
0.085
0.085
0.155
0.161
0.347
0.353
0.296
0.283
0.328
0.287
0.239
0.231
0.164
0.198
0.185
0.166
0.287
0.281
0.293
0.300
0.342
0.254
0.264
0.261
0.091
0.105
0.121
0.206
0.098
0.125
0.221
0.127
0.044
0.053
0.103
0.075
0.227
0.152
0.266
0.162
0.050
0.031
0.033
0.122
0.330
0.309
0.244
0.343
0.300
0.257
0.327
0.356
0.298
0.302
0.251
0.347
0.316
0.290
0.391
0.349
0.376
0.276
0.264
0.407
0.379
0.412
0.431
0.418
0.151
0.185
0.091
0.015
0.043
0.023
0.244
0.159
0.279
0.206
0.156
0.231
0.232
0.245
0.339
0.337
0.241
0.194
0.156
0.271
0.305
0.285
0.299
0.249
0.355
0.210
0.174
0.258
0.205
0.173
0.335
0.293
0.329
0.308
0.192
0.241
0.269
0.191
0.178
0.236
0.163
0.125
0.153
0.176
0.151
0.109
0.090
0.158
0.196
0.098
0.103
0.100
0.096
0.122
0.159
0.162
0.314
0.279
0.168
0.197
0.220
0.218
0.338
0.329
Continued
96
Table 10 continued
Older
Friends
Poor Mom
Relation
Poor Dad
Relation
Sexually
Active
Pregnancy
Unprotected
Sex
Multi Sex
Partners
Older Friends
Older Dating
Dating
Conflicts
Inflated
Abilities
Excessive
Self Worth
More
Deserving
Manipulates
Charming,
Insincere
Exaggerates
Abilities
Learning
Problems
Preoccupied
With Sex
Diff Keep Job
Job Resp.
Difficulty
Physical
Victimization
Sexual
Victimization
Neglect
Victim of
Crime
Older
Dating
Dating
Conflicts
Inflated
Abilities
Excessive
Self Worth
More
Deserving
Manipulates
Others
Charming
Insincere
0.354
0.289
0.212
0.236
0.220
0.236
0.298
0.269
0.264
0.245
0.191
0.218
0.188
0.177
0.196
0.186
0.474
0.444
0.387
0.247
0.281
0.208
0.288
0.297
0.145
0.183
0.219
0.054
0.052
0.041
0.073
0.073
0.346
0.391
0.336
0.177
0.187
0.127
0.247
0.293
0.393
0.438
0.316
0.238
0.285
0.230
0.295
0.284
1
0.554
0.554
1
0.310
0.287
0.367
0.256
0.295
0.248
0.286
0.217
0.272
0.257
0.321
0.314
0.310
0.287
0.209
0.224
0.159
0.223
0.280
0.367
0.256
0.209
0.577
0.524
0.345
0.375
0.295
0.248
0.224
0.577
0.661
0.421
0.464
0.286
0.217
0.159
0.524
0.661
0.407
0.421
0.272
0.257
0.223
0.345
0.421
0.407
0.620
0.321
0.314
0.280
0.375
0.464
0.421
0.620
0.341
0.263
0.168
0.461
0.381
0.401
0.368
0.366
0.113
0.116
0.097
0.041
0.098
0.097
0.176
0.139
0.223
0.352
0.175
0.141
0.208
0.161
0.302
0.240
0.056
0.083
0.186
0.079
0.091
0.129
0.169
0.149
0.075
0.041
0.142
0.101
0.122
0.139
0.211
0.119
0.236
0.160
0.204
0.216
0.197
0.167
0.183
0.204
0.175
0.150
0.175
0.169
0.161
0.155
0.169
0.151
0.187
0.189
0.127
0.226
0.174
0.166
0.192
0.225
0.196
0.210
0.247
0.205
0.204
0.125
0.210
0.205
Continued
97
Table 10 continued
Exaggerates
Abilities
Race
Age
No
Responsibility
No Guilt
Blames Others
Lies
Covers Up
Lack Belonging
Nervous
Bad Dreams
Trouble
Sleeping
Lost Interest
Moody/Dep.
Appetite
Change
Panic Attacks
Difficulty
Breathing
Physically
aggressive
Threatens
Tries to Get
Even
Academic
Difficulty
School
Behavior
Difficulty
Teacher
Conflict
Adult Youth
Conflict
Youth Not
Welcome
Youth at Risk
Harsh
Punishment
Uncontrollable
Learning
Problems
Preocc.
w/ Sex
0.142
-0.111
-0.023
-0.018
0.052
0.031
Diff.
Keep
Job
0.013
0.116
0.278
0.223
0.233
0.136
0.333
0.309
0.285
0.327
0.202
0.290
0.254
0.205
0.235
0.183
0.187
0.261
0.320
0.235
0.281
0.217
0.301
0.278
0.136
0.170
0.065
0.251
0.243
0.322
0.323
Job
Resp.
Diff
-.021
0.009
Physical
Victim
Sexual
Victim
Neglect
Victim
Crime
0.023
0.075
0.056
0.085
0.047
0.017
0.006
0.075
0.221
0.141
0.084
0.176
0.119
0.111
0.173
0.127
0.149
0.133
0.082
0.130
0.155
0.166
0.153
0.167
0.156
0.058
0.124
0.155
0.168
0.154
0.196
0.185
0.309
0.273
0.129
0.138
0.171
0.170
0.070
0.243
0.242
0.219
0.180
0.208
0.205
0.184
0.201
0.292
0.158
0.157
0.209
0.189
0.162
0.277
0.252
0.115
0.068
0.089
0.338
0.254
0.276
0.251
0.212
0.302
0.216
0.157
0.111
0.140
0.140
0.149
0.335
0.326
0.193
0.266
0.238
0.272
0.228
0.296
0.280
0.105
0.102
0.046
0.112
0.261
0.192
0.255
0.198
0.215
0.236
0.109
0.147
0.105
0.253
0.220
0.156
0.232
0.161
0.132
0.077
0.147
0.097
0.254
0.212
0.179
0.219
0.380
0.188
0.225
0.124
0.100
0.265
0.181
0.200
0.235
0.377
0.155
0.202
0.136
0.154
0.311
0.224
0.230
0.295
0.425
0.177
0.174
0.059
0.132
0.273
0.201
0.236
0.258
0.130
0.348
0.190
0.145
0.143
0.085
0.053
0.100
0.092
0.330
0.306
0.239
0.146
0.141
0.183
0.184
0.218
0.172
0.324
0.159
0.125
0.126
0.122
0.148
0.149
0.188
0.171
0.256
0.155
0.254
0.073
0.094
0.250
0.172
0.178
0.159
0.315
0.098
0.155
0.068
0.058
0.273
0.169
0.191
0.140
0.206
0.101
0.117
-0.019
0.366
0.200
0.195
0.210
0.188
0.051
0.124
0.034
0.220
0.140
0.137
0.128
0.316
0.149
0.273
0.063
0.002
0.088
0.109
0.198
0.170
0.121
0.214
Continued
98
Table 10 continued
Exaggerates
Abilities
Poor Mom
Relation
Poor Dad
Relation
Sexually Active
Pregnancy
Unprotected
Sex
Multi Sex
Partners
Older Friends
Older Dating
Dating Conflicts
Inflated Abilities
Excessive Self
Worth
More Deserving
Manipulates
Charming,
Insincere
Exaggerates
Abilities
Learning
Problems
Preoccupied
With Sex
Diff Keep Job
Job Resp.
Difficulty
Physical
Victimization
Sexual
Victimization
Neglect
Victim of Crime
Learning
Problems
Preocc.
w/ Sex
Diff.
Keep
Job
Job
Resp.
Diff
Physical
Victim
Sexual
Victim
Neglect
Victim
Crime
0.259
0.105
0.220
0.074
0.089
0.259
0.202
0.248
0.182
0.180
0.065
0.170
0.122
0.067
0.193
0.108
0.160
0.104
0.210
-0.001
0.177
0.051
0.414
0.141
0.140
0.108
0.110
0.128
0.269
0.053
0.281
0.053
0.207
0.107
0.255
0.121
0.181
0.170
0.447
0.156
0.106
0.229
0.260
0.193
0.236
0.203
0.128
0.346
0.138
0.174
0.214
0.270
0.154
0.288
0.341
0.263
0.168
0.461
0.113
0.116
0.097
0.041
0.223
0.352
0.175
0.141
0.056
0.083
0.186
0.079
0.075
0.041
0.142
0.101
0.236
0.160
0.204
0.216
0.175
0.150
0.175
0.169
0.187
0.189
0.127
0.226
0.196
0.210
0.247
0.205
0.381
0.098
0.208
0.091
0.122
0.197
0.161
0.174
0.204
0.401
0.368
0.097
0.176
0.161
0.302
0.129
0.169
0.139
0.211
0.167
0.183
0.155
0.169
0.166
0.192
0.125
0.210
0.366
0.139
0.240
0.149
0.119
0.204
0.151
0.225
0.205
0.168
0.197
0.112
0.114
0.252
0.173
0.201
0.207
0.168
0.169
0.117
0.080
0.200
0.227
0.143
0.180
0.197
0.169
0.122
0.102
0.190
0.207
0.129
0.181
0.112
0.117
0.122
0.528
0.128
0.122
0.124
0.139
0.114
0.080
0.102
0.528
0.025
0.012
0.077
0.036
0.252
0.200
0.190
0.128
0.025
0.548
0.470
0.440
0.173
0.227
0.207
0.122
0.012
0.548
0.338
0.476
0.201
0.207
0.143
0.180
0.129
0.181
0.124
0.139
0.077
0.036
0.470
0.440
0.338
0.476
1
0.285
0.285
1
Continued
99
Number of
Factors
RMSEA
point estimate
ECVI
point
estimate
5.780
Perfect Fit: Ho:

RMSEA = 0.00
Close Fit: Ho:

RMSEA<=0.05
0.057
RMSEA 90%
confidence
interval
( 0.055; 0.060)
0.000
0.000
0.053
( 0.050; 0.056)
5.357
0.000
0.034
0.049
( 0.046; 0.052)
4.994
0.000
0.667
0.044
(0.041; 0.047)
4.622
0.000
0.999
10
0.042
( 0.039; 0.046)
4.521
0.000
1.000
Table 11. RMSEA values for Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models
1 -School Problems
2 - Sexuality
3 - Employment
4 - CU Traits
5 - Parent-Child
Conflict
6 - Victimization
7 - Internalizing
Symptoms
8 - Narcissism
9 - Aggression
-11.000
0.016
0.166
0.499
-2-
-3-
-4-
1.000
0.066
0.050
1.000
0.195
1.000
0.330
0.280
0.080
0.119
0.197
0.130
0.221
0.171
0.269
0.255
0.286
0.235
0.206
0.107
0.144
Table 12. Correlation Matrix for Nine-Factor Model (EFA)
100
-5-
-6-
0.327
0.198
1.000
0.158
1.000
0.150
0.352
0.264
0.099
0.237
0.326
0.294
0.194
0.239
-7-
1.000
0.180
0.240
-8-
1.000
0.338
-9-
1.000
No Responsibility
Blames Others
Manipulates Others
Lack Of Belonging
Academic Difficulty
Teacher Conflict
Learning Problems
Tries To Get Even
Threatens To Harm
Inflated Sense of Abilities
Excessive Self-Worth
Charming, Insincere
Nervous
Bad Dreams
Trouble Sleeping
Lost Interest in Pleasure
Moody/Depressed
Appetite Change
Panic Attacks
Job Responsibility Diff.
Youth Not Welcome in Home
Youth At Risk in Home
Harsh Punishment
Uncontrollable After Punishment
Poor Mother Relationship
Poor Father Relationship
Sexually Active
Engages In Unprotected Sex
Has Multiple Sex Partners
Older Dating
Dating Conflicts
Physical Abuse History
Sexual Abuse History
History Of Neglect
Victim Of A Crime
-10.179
0.142
0.118
0.000
-0.037
0.057
0.432
0.589
0.569
0.792
0.453
0.013
0.042
0.152
0.033
0.110
-0.020
-0.028
0.091
0.133
-0.007
0.037
0.006
0.130
0.062
-0.043
0.019
0.027
-0.040
0.229
-0.090
-0.025
0.130
0.195
0.056
0.191
-0.026
0.033
0.001
0.013
0.117
-0.025
0.047
0.004
0.063
0.009
0.072
-0.006
-2-0.033
0.045
-0.159
0.079
0.078
-0.119
-0.041
0.012
0.070
0.033
-0.041
0.026
-0.019
0.013
0.083
0.115
0.059
-0.084
0.119
-0.036
0.096
-0.017
0.057
0.029
0.061
-0.009
0.095
0.023
-0.024
-0.094
0.070
0.014
-0.052
-0.131
0.050
0.142
0.787
0.403
0.789
0.779
0.504
0.528
0.449
0.356
0.014
-0.037
-0.030
0.152
-30.065
0.042
0.041
0.018
0.038
0.045
-0.006
0.015
0.010
-0.012
0.102
-0.004
0.035
0.022
0.038
0.030
0.033
0.012
0.069
0.097
0.026
0.066
0.027
0.004
-0.062
0.150
-0.052
1.036
0.623
-0.026
0.124
0.032
0.040
0.049
0.052
0.008
0.002
0.018
-0.016
-0.058
-0.023
0.105
0.082
-0.043
-0.029
-0.080
0.085
0.031
-40.663
0.567
0.550
0.728
0.749
0.442
0.032
0.094
0.023
-0.004
0.025
0.194
0.157
0.061
-0.046
0.233
0.043
0.025
0.271
0.041
-0.054
0.144
0.048
0.071
-0.039
-0.021
-0.052
-0.120
0.083
0.041
-0.028
-0.088
0.177
0.190
0.182
0.143
0.086
-0.067
0.032
0.055
0.040
-0.045
-0.055
0.048
-0.108
0.021
0.025
0.101
Table 13. Nine-Factor Structure of Psychopathy (CFA)
101
-50.113
0.096
0.141
0.006
-0.007
0.047
0.108
0.059
0.067
0.026
-0.092
0.033
0.026
0.040
0.066
-0.157
0.017
0.038
0.014
-0.059
0.014
-0.022
0.277
0.075
0.052
-0.024
-0.013
-0.057
0.057
0.508
0.553
0.464
0.468
0.453
0.594
0.362
0.055
-0.039
-0.012
-0.101
0.079
0.053
0.000
0.126
0.150
-0.048
0.051
-0.054
-60.050
-0.017
0.029
0.030
0.022
0.072
-0.021
0.030
0.060
-0.029
0.079
0.114
0.014
0.086
0.027
0.012
0.016
0.004
0.073
0.149
0.029
0.141
-0.032
0.022
0.147
0.104
-0.053
0.030
-0.112
0.076
-0.025
0.059
0.025
0.005
0.078
0.044
-0.049
0.011
0.040
-0.079
0.016
0.110
0.046
0.033
0.803
0.524
0.563
0.476
-7-0.082
0.036
0.000
-0.043
0.049
0.005
0.190
-0.032
-0.146
-0.079
0.187
0.079
0.058
0.053
0.126
0.087
-0.073
-0.079
0.050
0.381
0.663
0.639
0.421
0.498
0.436
0.418
0.515
-0.098
0.006
-0.066
0.132
-0.048
0.025
0.102
-0.067
-0.006
-0.002
-0.062
0.016
0.057
0.048
0.009
0.100
0.157
-0.003
-0.014
-0.055
0.192
-80.038
0.037
0.140
0.066
-0.009
0.203
0.045
-0.032
0.044
0.033
0.002
0.199
0.008
0.072
0.664
0.370
0.766
0.781
0.363
0.023
-0.006
0.075
0.102
0.009
0.134
-0.080
0.035
-0.022
0.053
0.054
0.050
0.167
0.067
-0.036
-0.079
-0.054
0.024
0.063
-0.065
0.075
0.052
0.064
0.041
0.111
-0.003
0.123
-0.123
-0.012
-9-0.018
0.068
0.011
0.061
0.193
0.176
0.069
-0.015
0.205
0.120
-0.097
0.445
0.755
0.562
-0.016
0.085
-0.026
0.115
0.102
0.007
0.023
-0.146
0.034
0.107
0.181
0.146
0.196
-0.049
0.009
0.134
0.082
0.084
-0.098
0.078
0.037
0.025
-0.054
0.115
-0.033
0.034
0.000
0.020
0.091
0.034
0.151
-0.071
0.104
-0.059
Factor 1: School Problems

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
.773
N of Items
5
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Lack Of Belonging To
School
Academic Difficulty
Teacher Conflict
Learning Problems
Cronbach's
Alpha
.827
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
2.48
4.983
.495
.748
2.01
2.34
2.15
2.49
4.364
4.601
4.082
5.185
.592
.551
.671
.419
.714
.729
.683
.770
Factor 2: Sexuality
N of Items
8

Older Dating
Sexually Active
Dating Conflicts
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
2.25
2.09
2.04
1.74
2.15
2.13
1.79
2.13
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
8.234
6.942
6.610
6.717
7.432
7.661
6.097
7.602
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.404
.668
.704
.519
.566
.435
.685
.485
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.826
.792
.785
.816
.807
.821
.788
.816
Continued
Table 14. Factor Reliabilities (Cronbachs ) For Boys Sample 1
102
Table 14 continued
Factor 3: Employment
Cronbach's
Alpha
.755
N of Items
2

Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
.09
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
.124
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.607
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.(a)
.08
.112
.607
.(a)
a The value is negative due to a negative average covariance among items. This violates reliability model
assumptions. You may want to check item codings.
Factor 4: CU Traits
Cronbach's
Alpha
.890
N of Items
6
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Blames Others
Manipulates Others
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
2.73
7.561
.774
.859
2.73
2.88
2.65
2.69
2.98
7.898
8.101
7.774
7.849
8.649
.701
.694
.711
.751
.612
.871
.872
.870
.863
.884
Continued
103
Table 14 continued
Factor 5: Parent-Child Conflict
Cronbach's
Alpha
.799
N of Items
7
Adult Youth Conflict

Harsh Punishment
Punishment
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
2.09
2.40
2.55
2.30
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
6.134
7.239
8.030
6.824
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.618
.487
.417
.533
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.755
.781
.797
.773
2.21
6.393
.611
.757
2.19
1.99
6.290
6.170
.639
.492
.751
.789
Factor 6: Victimization
Cronbach's
Alpha
.691
N of Items
4
History Of Neglect
Victim Of A Crime
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
.52
.71
.56
.52
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
.896
1.495
1.130
1.117
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.622
.412
.472
.459
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.519
.681
.629
.639
Continued
104
Table 14 continued
Factor 7: Internalizing Symptoms
Cronbach's
Alpha
.807
N of Items
8
Nervous
Bad Dreams
Trouble Sleeping
Enjoyments
Moody Depressed
Appetite Change
Panic Attacks
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
2.16
2.16
2.08
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
6.870
6.405
6.110
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.446
.597
.594
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.796
.773
.773
2.11
6.606
.490
.790
1.93
2.17
2.38
2.28
6.131
6.491
7.544
7.011
.568
.558
.458
.498
.778
.779
.798
.789
Factor 8: Narcissism
Cronbach's
Alpha
.807
N of Items
5

Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
1.38
1.31
1.57
1.55
1.36
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
3.222
3.368
3.557
3.527
3.379
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.652
.516
.657
.643
.539
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.750
.797
.756
.758
.788
Continued
105
Table 14 continued
Factor 9: Aggression
Cronbach's
Alpha
.812
N of Items
3
Tries To Get Even

Threatens To Harm
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
.90
1.03
.93
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
1.449
1.441
1.418
106
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.620
.705
.665
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.787
.701
.739
CU
Traits
School
Problems
Aggression
Narcissism
Internalizing
Symptoms
ParentChild
Conflict
Employment
Sexuality
CU Traits
School
Problems
.581(**)
Aggression
.578(**)
.478(**)
Narcissism
.565(**)
.356(**)
.545(**)
Internalizing
Symptoms
.355(**)
.386(**)
.484(**)
.411(**)
Employment
.193(**)
.131(**)
.133(**)
.158(**)
.174(**)
Parent-Child
Conflict
.604(**)
.539(**)
.512(**)
.396(**)
.355(**)
.211(**)
Sexuality
.183(**)
.145(**)
.323(**)
.416(**)
.382(**)
.064
.192(**)
Victimization
.286(**)
.308(**)
.385(**)
.273(**)
.419(**)
.081
.303(**)
.213(**)
** significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 15. Factor Scale Correlations, Boys Sample 1
107
Victimization
Degree of
Parameter
Specificity
All parameters free
to vary
Item Loadings,
Factor
Correlations Fixed
Factor
Correlations Fixed
RMSEA
point estimate
0.059
RMSEA 90%
confidence
interval
(0.056,0.061)
0.126
Item Loadings
Fixed
ECVI
Perfect Fit: Ho:

RMSEA = 0.00
Close Fit: Ho:

RMSEA<=0.05
6.199
0.00
0.00
(0.124,0.129)
20.410
0.00
0.00
0.063
(0.060,0.065)
6.744
0.00
0.00
0.077
(0.075,0.079)
8.952
0.00
0.00
Table 16. Results of CFA, Boys-Sample 2
Model
df
RMSEA
90% CI
for
RMSEA
Test for
close
fit (Ho:
RMSEA
<.05)
.000
Comparison
1. All
2866.291 1044
.059
.056parameters
.061
free to vary
2. All
10208.864 1127
.126
.124.000
Model 1 vs.
parameters
.129
2
fully
specified
3. Factor
4350.920 1091
.077
.075.000
Model 1 vs.
loadings
.079
3
specified
4. Factor
3213.481 1080
.063
.060.000
Model 1 vs.
correlations
.065
4
specified
RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error Approximation; CI = Confidence Interval
Table 17. Fit Indices for Testing Nested Models, Boys- Sample 2
108
2
change
df
change
p
change
7342.573
83
p<.001
1484.629
47
p<.001
347.19
36
p<.001
Discrepancy Between Free and Fixed Estimates
Item or Correlation
Difficulty Keeping a Job - Employment
Tries to Get Even - Aggression
-0.37
0.308
Exaggerates Abilities - Narcissism

Charming But Insincere - Narcissism
Uncontrollable After Punishment - Parent-Child Conflict
Sexual Victimization - Sexuality
0.263
0.261
0.242
-0.219
Appetite Change - Internalizing Symptoms

0.188
No Guilt When Caught CU traits
0.174
Teacher Conflict School Problems
0.168
Blames Others CU traits
0.163
Nervous - Internalizing Symptoms
0.160
Lost Interest - Internalizing Symptoms
0.156
Physically Aggressive Aggression
0.154
Moody/Depressed - Internalizing Symptoms
0.153
Manipulates Others CU Traits
0.149
Internalizing Symptoms - Sexuality
0.133
Harsh Punishment - Parent-Child Conflict
0.123
No Responsibility For Actions CU traits
0.114
Victim of A Crime Victimization
-0.112
Preoccupied With Sex Sexuality
0.111
* A negative number indicates that the Fixed estimate was larger than the Free estimate.
Table 18. Discrepancy Between Free and Fixed Estimates- Boys, Sample 2
Degree of
Parameter
Specificity
Parameters free
to vary if
discrepancy is
0.3
Parameters free
to vary if
discrepancy is
0.2
Parameters free
to vary if
discrepancy is
0.1
RMSEA
point estimate
ECVI
Perfect Fit: Ho:

RMSEA = 0.00
Close Fit: Ho:

RMSEA<=0.05
0.067
RMSEA 90%
confidence
interval
(0.064,0.069)
7.433
0.00
0.00
0.066
(0.063,0.068)
7.271
0.00
0.00
0.064
(0.062,0.066)
6.999
0.00
0.00
Table 19. Results of CFA when Model is Further Specified, Boys-Sample 2
109

Cronbach's
Alpha
.762
N of Items
5
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
School
Academic Difficulty
Teacher Conflict
Learning Problems
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
2.46
4.926
.451
.745
1.92
2.06
2.25
2.45
4.054
3.915
4.312
4.917
.560
.645
.585
.422
.710
.675
.700
.754
Factor 2: Sexuality
Cronbach's
Alpha
.819
N of Items
8

Sexually Active
Older Dating
Dating Conflicts
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
2.24
1.87
2.35
2.19
2.13
1.82
2.17
2.24
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
8.115
6.413
8.951
7.284
6.928
7.107
7.576
8.247
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.428
.695
.342
.682
.696
.505
.574
.413
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.812
.773
.821
.778
.773
.807
.793
.813
Continued
Table 20. Factor Reliabilities (Cronbachs ), Boys Sample 2
110
Table 20 continued
Cronbach's
Alpha
.642
N of Items
2

Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
.07
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
.081
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.473
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.(a)
.07
.092
.473
.(a)
Factor 4: CU Traits
Cronbach's
Alpha
.873
N of Items
6
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Blames Others
Manipulates Others
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
2.65
7.306
.731
.841
2.69
2.79
2.53
2.60
2.92
7.570
7.767
7.224
7.413
8.652
.684
.666
.724
.720
.524
.850
.853
.843
.843
.874
Continued
111
Table 20 continued
Cronbach's
Alpha
.762
N of Items
7
Harsh Punishment
Punishment
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
2.09
2.43
2.57
2.34
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
5.706
6.574
7.256
6.267
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.581
.497
.454
.515
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.710
.732
.748
.726
2.21
5.949
.548
.718
2.21
2.08
5.915
6.316
.550
.329
.717
.775
Cronbach's
Alpha
.587
N of Items
4
History Of Neglect
Victim Of A Crime
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
.51
.62
.50
.41
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
.809
1.198
.856
.896
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.527
.290
.413
.292
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.379
.578
.478
.593
Continued
112
Table 20 continued
Cronbach's
Alpha
.794
N of Items
8
Nervous
Bad Dreams
Trouble Sleeping
Enjoyments
Moody Depressed
Appetite Change
Panic Attacks
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
1.92
1.99
1.92
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
5.954
5.942
5.579
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.460
.525
.555
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.778
.767
.762
1.90
5.840
.496
.772
1.76
1.97
2.18
2.09
5.487
5.777
6.848
6.339
.561
.549
.417
.503
.761
.763
.787
.773
Cronbach's
Alpha
.815
N of Items
5
Excessive Self-Worth
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
1.15
1.16
1.36
1.35
1.18
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
2.937
2.725
3.216
3.190
3.121
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.559
.692
.657
.649
.518
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.797
.752
.770
.771
.806
Continued
113
Table 20 continued
Cronbach's
Alpha
.787
N of Items
3
Tries To Get Even

Threatens To Harm
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
.90
1.01
.91
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
1.359
1.436
1.366
114
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.603
.651
.632
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.740
.690
.706
CU
Traits
School
Problems
Aggression
Narcissism
Internalizing
Symptoms
ParentChild
Conflict
Employment
Sexuality
CU Traits
School
Problems
.617(**)
Aggression
.572(**)
.473(**)
Narcissism
.556(**)
.336(**)
.572(**)
Internalizing
Symptoms
.353(**)
.378(**)
.451(**)
.440(**)
Employment
.136(**)
.143(**)
.038
.038
.145(**)
Parent-Child
Conflict
.641(**)
.533(**)
.490(**)
.388(**)
.330(**)
.129(**)
Sexuality
.282(**)
.157(**)
.335(**)
.314(**)
.374(**)
.135(**)
.224(**)
Victimization
.232(**)
.168(**)
.264(**)
.267(**)
.315(**)
.069
.303(**)
.276(**)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 21. Factor Scale Correlations, Boys Sample 2
115
Victimization
Degree of
Parameter
Specificity
All parameters
free to vary
Item Loadings,
Factor
Correlations Fixed
Factor
Correlations Fixed
Item Loadings
Fixed
RMSEA
point estimate
ECVI
Perfect Fit: Ho:

RMSEA = 0.00
Close Fit: Ho:

RMSEA<=0.05
0.054
RMSEA 90%
confidence
interval
(0.052; 0.056)
4.800
0.000
0.001
0.087
(0.085,0.089)
10.167
0.000
0.000
0.058
(0.056; 0.060)
5.394
0.000
0.000
0.091
(0.089; 0.093)
10.686
0.000
0.000
Table 22. Results of CFA, Girls
Model
df
RMSEA
90% CI
for
RMSEA
Test for
close fit
(Ho:
RMSEA
< .05)
.001
Comparison
1. All
3263.725 1044
.054
.052parameters
.056
free to vary
2. All
7376.460 1128
.087
.085-.089
.000
Model 1 vs. 2
parameters
fully
specified
3. Factor
6454.037 1091
.082
.080-.084
.000
Model 1 vs. 3
loadings
specified
4. Factor
3772.937 1080
.058
.056-.060
.000
Model 1 vs. 4
correlations
specified
RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error Approximation; CI = Confidence Interval
Table 23. Fit Indices for Testing Nested Models, Girls
116
2
change
df
change
p
change
4112.735
84
p<.001
3190.312
47
p<.001
509.212
36
p<.001
Item or Correlation
Discrepancy Between Free and Fixed Estimates
Difficulty Keeping a Job - Employment
-0.347
Lost Interest Internalizing Symptoms

Charming But Insincere - Narcissism
Appetite Change - Internalizing Symptoms
Tries to Get Even Aggression
Moody/Depressed - Internalizing Symptoms
Adult-Youth Conflict - Aggression
Nervous - Internalizing Symptoms
No Guilt When Caught CU Traits
Exaggerates Abilities Narcissism
0.287
0.282
0.259
0.242
0.238
0.227
0.226
0.213
0.212
Physically Aggressive - Aggression

Sexual Victim - Victimization
Manipulates Others CU Traits
Panic Attacks - Internalizing Symptoms
Preoccupied with sex - Sexuality
Job Responsibility Difficulty - Employment
Difficulty Breathing - Internalizing Symptoms
Blames Others - CU Traits
No Responsibility for Actions CU Traits
Poor Father Relationship Parent-Child Conflict
Teacher Conflict School Problems
Youth at Risk of Harm Parent-Child Conflict
0.197
0.164
0.161
0.158
0.156
0.144
0.143
0.137
0.137
0.132
0.127
-0.124
Table 24. Discrepancy between Free and Fixed Estimates- Girls
Degree of
Parameter
Specificity
Parameters free
to vary if
discrepancy is
0.3
Parameters free
to vary if
discrepancy is
0.2
Parameters free
to vary if
discrepancy is
0.1
RMSEA
point estimate
ECVI
Perfect Fit: Ho:

RMSEA = 0.00
Close Fit: Ho:

RMSEA<=0.05
0.064
RMSEA 90%
confidence
interval
(0.062, 0.066)
6.323
0.00
0.00
0.061
(0.059,0.063)
5.778
0.00
0.00
0.059
(0.057,0.061)
5.521
0.00
0.00
Table 25. Results of CFA When Model is Further Specified, Girls
117

Cronbach's
Alpha
.717
N of Items
5
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
School
Academic Difficulty
Teacher Conflict
Learning Problems
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
2.19
4.504
.364
.713
1.91
2.15
2.00
2.42
3.851
4.202
3.645
4.919
.526
.511
.618
.373
.649
.656
.605
.707
Factor 2: Sexuality
Cronbach's
Alpha
.821
N of Items
8
Sexually Active
Engages In Unprotected Sex
Older Dating
Dating Conflicts
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
2.65
3.18
2.96
3.02
2.55
2.95
3.04
3.15
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
8.296
10.831
9.076
9.423
8.806
9.128
10.116
10.289
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.719
.326
.678
.633
.534
.582
.427
.441
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.772
.825
.781
.789
.805
.794
.815
.813
Continued
Table 26. Factor Reliabilities (Cronbachs ), Girls
118
Table 26 continued
Cronbach's
Alpha
.690
N of Items
2

Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
.07
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
.087
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.528
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.(a)
.06
.074
.528
.(a)
Factor 4: Callous-Unemotional Traits
Cronbach's
Alpha
.843
N of Items
5

Blames Others
Manipulates Others
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
2.44
2.65
2.35
2.44
2.76
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
5.292
5.663
5.134
5.352
6.174
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.684
.621
.709
.699
.534
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.801
.818
.794
.797
.840
Continued
119
Table 26 continued
Cronbach's
Alpha
.776
N of Items
7
Adult Youth Conflict

Harsh Punishment
Punishment
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
3.04
3.44
3.79
3.55
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
7.670
8.404
10.137
9.054
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.616
.524
.334
.451
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.721
.742
.777
.757
3.33
8.171
.562
.734
3.16
3.12
7.874
8.155
.581
.443
.729
.764
Cronbach's
Alpha
.748
N of Items
4
History Of Neglect
Victim Of A Crime
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
.76
.78
.76
.76
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
1.501
1.664
1.746
1.748
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.640
.586
.452
.500
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.631
.666
.740
.712
Continued
120
Table 26 continued
Cronbach's
Alpha
.871
N of Items
8
Nervous
Bad Dreams
Trouble Sleeping
Enjoyments
Moody Depressed
Appetite Change
Panic Attacks
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
3.13
3.13
3.05
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
11.593
11.254
10.914
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.564
.668
.677
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.862
.850
.849
3.02
10.998
.644
.853
2.77
3.12
3.36
3.27
10.664
11.133
12.526
11.954
.675
.642
.544
.620
.850
.853
.864
.857
Cronbach's
Alpha
.805
N of Items
5

Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
1.40
1.51
1.33
1.50
1.35
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
3.328
3.472
3.485
3.491
3.426
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.628
.682
.512
.651
.510
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.755
.743
.793
.751
.795
Continued
121
Table 26 continued
Cronbach's
Alpha
.790
N of Items
3
Tries To Get Even

Threatens To Harm
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
1.03
1.16
1.09
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
1.553
1.515
1.550
122
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
.556
.702
.641
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
.798
.640
.703
CU
Traits
School
Problems
Aggression
Narcissism
Internalizing
Symptoms
ParentChild
Conflict
Employment
Sexuality
CU Traits
School
Problems
.568(**)
Aggression
.526(**)
.468(**)
Narcissism
.550(**)
.372(**)
.571(**)
Internalizing
Symptoms
.276(**)
.393(**)
.430(**)
.341(**)
Employment
.234(**)
.220(**)
.160(**)
.176(**)
.170(**)
Parent-Child
Conflict
.572(**)
.473(**)
.495(**)
.434(**)
.434(**)
.122(**)
Sexuality
.445(**)
.338(**)
.432(**)
.444(**)
.463(**)
.192(**)
.474(**)
Victimization
.285(**)
.293(**)
.383(**)
.337(**)
.459(**)
.123(**)
.370(**)
.386(**)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 27. Factor Scale Correlations, Girls
123
Victimization

Dizertatie Tot Cu Instrumente

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dizertatie Tot Cu Instrumente

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PSYCHOPATHY IN DELINQUENT GIRLS:

AN EXAMINATION OF FACTOR STRUCTURE

The Ohio State University

Dedicated to M. and L.B.

Study Hypothesis 3 ..........................................................................................43

Global Risk Assessment Device ......................................................................61

75 Items Selected from GRAD ........................................................................66

27 Variables Omitted from Item Selection ......................................................68

Final Item Selection from GRAD ....................................................................69

Descriptive Statistics, Boys Sample 1 ..........................................................71

Descriptive Statistics, Boys Sample 2 ..........................................................73

Descriptive Statistics, Girls..............................................................................75

Correlation Matrix, Boys .................................................................................77

Correlation Matrix, Girls .................................................................................89

RMSEA Values for CFA Models ..................................................................100

Correlation Matrix for Nine-Factor Model (EFA).........................................100

Nine-Factor Structure of Psychopathy (CFA) ...............................................101

Factor Reliabilities for Boys - Sample 1........................................................102

Factor Scale Correlations, Boys Sample 1..................................................107

Results of CFA, Boys Sample 2 .................................................................108

Fit Indices for Nested Models, Boys Sample 2...........................................108

Discrepancy Between Free and Fixed Estimates, Boys Sample 2..............109

Results of CFA when Model is Further Specified, Boys Sample 2............109

Factor Reliabilities, Boys Sample 2............................................................110

Factor Scale Correlations, Boys Sample 2..................................................115

Results of CFA, Girls.....................................................................................116

Fit Indices for Testing Nested Models, Girls.................................................116

Discrepancy Between Free and Fixed Estimates, Girls .................................117

Results of CFA when Model is Further Specified, Girls ...............................117

Factor Reliabilities, Girls ...............................................................................118

Factor Scale Correlations, Girls.....................................................................123

PART I: ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR IN CHILDREN

DSM Classification System

Research on aggressive girls has primarily focused on relational aggression (Crick,

Antisocial Behavior in Girls

1986; Zoccolillo, 1992). Somatization, or unexplained medical complaints, is another

Developmental Pathways of Conduct Disorder

PART II: PSYCHOPATHY

Childhood psychopathy, as measured by high levels of CU traits, is strongly

aggression, while reactive aggression (retaliatory aggression) is more commonly found in

PART III: CURRENT STUDY

Cuyahoga County - Cleveland, OH

Franklin County Columbus, OH

Licking County Newark, OH

Item Selection and Reduction

ODD, ASPD, HPD, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and Borderline Personality

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Exploratory Factor Analyses

Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Comparison of Correlation Strength

Review of Study Hypotheses

As anticipated, the nine-factor model replicated in the sample of girls; however, it

In contrast to expectation, no unique, sex specific behavioral correlates were

psychopathy in children and adolescents. Therefore, it is unclear if the two-factor

Hare, R.D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto:Multi-Health

Lilienfeld, S.O. (1994). Methodological advances and developments in the assessment of

Engages in risky or dangerous

Poor behavioral controls.

Acts without thinking.

Keeps the same friends.

Lies with straight face.

Grandiose sense of selfworth.

Items Not Included