Child and adolescent psychopathy: stability and change.

This article introduces the concept of child and adolescent psychopathy and discusses the reasons why the concept might be developmentally appropriate. Past research has suggested that child psychopathy might be inapplicable to youth because the symptoms cannot be reliably distinguished from features of normative adolescent development. Also, concerns have been raised regarding the possibility that the syndrome does not closely resemble the adult construct of psychopathy. Studies addressing the reliability and construct validity of psychopathy have shown that the concept does appear to be reliably distinguished from normal adolescent development and that the concept has a reasonable degree of construct validity. This article discusses research on the reliability and validity of child and adolescent psychopathy. In addition, it discusses the possibility of change in psychopathic symptoms over time and points to potential protective factors and directions for future research.

Key words: adolescents; change; children; protective; psychopathy; stability.

**********

There has been a significant increase in the research on child and adolescent psychopathy since the early work of Benjamin Karpman and Hervey Cleckley (Cleckley, 1941; Karpman, 1949, 1950; Salekin & Frick, 2005). Specifically, in the mid-1990s, interest in the child psychopathy concept was initiated by the work of Frick, O'Brien, Wootton, and McBurnett (1994) and Lynam (1996) when they developed child psychopathy measures to systematically study the symptoms of psychopathy in youth. Forth, Hare, and Hart (1990) also initiated work on psychopathy in youth using an altered version of the adult Psychopathy Checklist (PCL; Hare, 1985). These efforts began because it was thought that the research had great potential for increasing our understanding of the etiology of the disorder, as well as improving the effectiveness of treatment programs for youth with psychopathic features, in order to improve the lives of youth and reduce negative outcomes that affect others (poor relationships, aggression, general and violent recidivism; Salekin, Rogers, & Sewell, 1996).

Since the early work of Forth et al. (1990), Frick et al. (1994) and Lynam (1996) there has been a dramatic increase in the research on psychopathy as it applies to children and adolescents. This research has demonstrated that the indices of child psychopathy have structural homogeneity, interrater reliability, and a similar factor structure to that of adult psychopathy (Frick, Bodin, & Barry, 2000; Salekin, Brannen, Zalot, Leistico, & Neumann, 2006; Vincent & Hart, 2002). This research is important as a first step because it shows that there appears to be scale coherence, agreement across raters, as well as a similar factor structure to adult psychopathy. Other structural questions such as the prevalence of psychopathy have been addressed in order to determine if the rates of the purported childhood syndrome are similar to that of adult samples. Research thus far has shown that the prevalence rate of child psychopathy is no higher than that of adult psychopathy. In detention centers the prevalence rate is typically around 20% (Forth, Kosson, & Hare, 2003). This indirect evidence would suggest that psychopathy symptoms are not normative or mimicked by the developmental stage of adolescence. In addition to these data, item response theory has contributed to our understanding of the psychopathy concept in both boys and girls (Schrum & Salekin, 2006; Vincent, 2002). This research has shown that the items of psychopathy function similarly to those of adult psychopathy. That is, at high levels of the construct, as measured by the Psychopathy Checklist-Youth Version (PCL:YV; Forth et al. 2003), most youth receive top scores (2) on a given item; at low levels of the construct, youth receive low scores (0) on a given symptom; and, at medium levels of the concept, youth receive mid-level scores (1) on symptoms.

In summary, the foregoing tells us that child and adolescent psychopathy has a similar prevalence rate, scale homogeneity and interrater agreement, as well as similarity in item functioning and factor structure (Salekin et al., 2006) to that of adult psychopathy. But does it have the same meaning with children as it does with adults? This question is partially addressed through construct validity research.

Child and Adolescent Psychopathy: Nomological Net