Self-report measures of juvenile psychopathic personality traits: A comparative review

Michael G. Vaughn, Matthew O. Howard

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

36 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The authors evaluated self-report instruments currently being used to assess children and adolescents with psychopathic personality traits with respect to their reliability, validity, and research utility. Comprehensive searches across multiple computerized bibliographic databases were conducted and supplemented with manual searches. A total of 30 articles incorporating the following nine measures of juvenile psychopathy were identified: Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD), Mil/on Adolescent Clinical Inventory-derived Murrie and Cornell Psychopathy Scale (MC-P), Psychopathy Scale-16 (PS-16), modified Childhood Psychopathy Scale (mCPS), Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent Version (MMPI and MMPI-A), NEO-Personolity Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R),Psychopothic Personality Inventory (PPI),Psychopathy Scale-11 (PS-11), and Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory (YPI). Current research shows limited utility for the MMPI-A, preliminary yet promising results for the PS-11, PS-16, and YPI, and a growing database of support for the APSD, mCPS, MC-P, NEOPI-R, and PPI. Although the clinical utility of self-report psychopathy assessment is still open, there are some indications that self-report measures can identify psychopathic traits that are associated with criminological outcomes.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)152-162
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
Volume13
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2005

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Education
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Clinical Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Self-report measures of juvenile psychopathic personality traits: A comparative review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this