Psychopathy in Delinquent Girls: an Examination of Factor Structure

Home , Psychopathy

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

Ana Maria Ugueto, M.A.

* * * *

The Ohio State University 2005

Dissertation Committee: Dr. Michael Vasey, Advisor Approved by Dr. Steven Beck Dr. John Gibbs ______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, O’Brien,

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,

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.

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 The Ohio State University

2000-2004 ...... Graduate Teaching Associate The Ohio State University

2004-2005 ...... Pediatric Psychology Intern Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Psychology

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:

Confirmatory Factor Analysis...... 34

Reliabilities ...... 36

Girls:

Confirmatory Factor Analysis...... 37

Reliabilities ...... 39

Comparison of Correlation Strength...... 39

4. Discussion...... 40

Study Hypothesis 1 ...... 40

Study Hypothesis 2 ...... 42

viii

Study Hypothesis 3 ...... 43

Study Hypothesis 4 ...... 44

Limitations ...... 46

Future Directions...... 48

General Conclusions...... 49

References...... 51

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

1 Psychopathy Measures...... 60

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

3 75 Items Selected from GRAD...... 66

4 27 Variables Omitted from Item Selection ...... 68

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

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

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

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

9 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

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 Cleckley’s (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,

O’Brien, 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 Harpur’s 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 Harpur’s (Hare et al., 1991) adult model of psychopathy, (2) recent evidence of psychopathy in adult women, (3) Frick’s 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 & O’Leary,

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 one’s behavior on others by citing specific antisocial acts his patients had committed. Cleckley was greatly concerned

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 Cleckley’s (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 self- worth, 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,

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 Cleckley’s

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-R’s 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

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

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 Harpur’s 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 Harpur’s 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

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 one- factor 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 three- factor 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).

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).

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; O’Brien & 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

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, O’Brien, 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

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 clinic-

referred 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

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 (α=.84) and child (α=.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.

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

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.

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 Ohio’s largest juvenile court, serving over 30,000 cases annually. The sample consisted of 1019 consecutive cases of juvenile

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, pre-

sentence 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.

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% African-

American) 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

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.”

Cronbach’s 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),

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,

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

Disorder. These items were selected in order to capture Frick’s 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,

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.

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

(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.

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

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) Parent-

Child 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

Cronbach’s alpha was computed for each factor to measure the degree of item relatedness. Alpha’s ranged from .89 (CU Traits) to .69 (Victimization). All factors yielded good to acceptable reliabilities (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1970). Additionally,

Cronbach’s 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

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

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

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

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

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

Internal Consistency

Cronbach’s alpha was computed for each factor to measure the degree of item relatedness. Alpha’s ranged from .87 (CU Traits) to .59 (Victimization). All factors, other

than Victimization, yielded good to moderate reliabilities. Cronbach’s 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.

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

A correlation matrix for the nine factors was also created to determine the relation

of each factor to the other factors. All nine factors were significantly (α = .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

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

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,

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.

Reliabilities

Internal Consistency

Cronbach’s alpha was computed for each factor to measure the degree of item relatedness. Alpha’s ranged from .84(CU Traits) to .69 (Employment). All factors yielded

good to moderate reliabilities. Cronbach’s 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

A correlation matrix for the nine factors was also created to determine the relation

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).

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

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 Frick’s 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 clinic- referred 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

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.

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.

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.

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 (α=.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

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

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

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

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,

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.

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.

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 children’s 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.

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). Callous- unemotional traits and conduct problems in the prediction of conduct problem severity, aggression, and self-report of delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 457-470.

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.

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, 391- 398.

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.

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, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario.

Loney, B.R., Frick, P.J., Clements, C.B., Ellis, M.L., & Kerlin, K. (2003). Callous- unemotional traits, impulsivity, and emotional processing in adolescents with antisocial behavior problems. Journal of Child Clinical and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 66-80.

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.

O’Brien, B.S., & Frick, P.J. (1996). Reward dominance: Associations with anxiety, conduct problems, and psychopathy in children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24, 223-239.

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 social- cognitive 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, 566- 580.

Rosenbaum, A. & O'Leary, K. D. (1981). Children: The unintended victims of marital violence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51, 692-699.

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.

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.

APPENDIX A

TABLES

Psychopathy Checklist – Psychopathy Screening Antisocial Process Global Risk Revised (Two-Factors) Device (Two-Factors) Screening Device Assessment Device (Hare, 1991) (Frick, O’Brien, Wootton, & (Three-Factors) (Gavazzi, Slade, McBurnett, 1999) (Frick & Hare, 2001) Buettner, Partridge, Yarcheck, & Andrews, 2003) Antisocial Lifestyle Impulsive/Conduct Problems Impulsivity Need for stimulation- Brags about accomplishments. Does not plan ahead. proneness to boredom. Parasistic lifestyle. Engages in risky or dangerous Engages in risky activities. activities. Poor behavioral controls. Blames other for mistakes. Blames other for mistakes. Early behavior problems. Acts without thinking. Acts without thinking. Lack of realistic, long-term Gets bored easily. Gets bored easily. goals Impulsivity. Teases other people. Irresponsibility. Becomes angry when corrected. Juvenile delinquency. Engages in illegal activities. Revocation of release. Keeps the same friends. Thinks s/he is more important than others. Emotional Detachment Callous-Unemotional Traits Callous-Unemotional Callous-Unemotional Traits Traits Conning – manipulative. Is concerned about the feelings Is concerned feelings of No responsibility for of others.(R) others.(R) actions. Callous – lack of empathy. Feels bad or guilty. (R) Feels bad or guilty. (R) No guilt when caught. Failure to accept Concerned about schoolwork. Is concerned about Covers up wrong doings. responsibility for actions. (R) schoolwork. (R) Lack or remorse/guilt Does not show emotions. Does not show emotion. Blames others.

Glibness-superficial charm. Acts charming in ways that Keeps promises.(R) Manipulates others. seem insincere. Shallow affect. Emotions seem shallow. Keeps the same friends. Lies with straight face. (R) Grandiose sense of self- worth. Pathological lying. Failure to accept responsibility for actions.

Continued

Table 1. Psychopathy Measures

Table 1 continued

Thinks more important. Inflated sense of abilities. Brags excessively. Exaggerates abilities. Uses or “cons” others. Feels more deserving. Can be charming. Charming but insincere. Teases others. Inflated sense of abilities. Becomes angry when corrected. Emotions seem shallow. Items Not Included Items Not Included Items Not Included Promiscuous sexual Uses or cons others. Lies easily and skillfully. behavior. Many short-term marital Lies easily and skillfully. relationships. Criminal versatility. Does not plan ahead.

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)

Table 2 continued

Education/Vocation con’t. (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

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 can’t 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 don’t 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

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 didn’t belong in your community? 7. Have you ever felt like you didn’t 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?

Family/Parenting (10) 1. How often do you get into fights with adults who live in your home? 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. Do you ever become more uncontrollable after you have been punished? 8. Do your family members ever seem to go out of their way to NOT upset you? 9. Does your relationship with your mother ever feel not so good? 10. Does your relationship with your father ever feel not so good?

Education/Vocation (6) 1. Have you experienced academic difficulty in school? 2. Have you had difficulty controlling your behavior in school? 3. Have you had conflict with any of your teachers? 4. Were you told that you may have learning problems? 5. Did you have difficulty keeping a job that you had? 6. Did you have difficulty living up to job responsibilities/requirements?

Peers/Significant Relationships (10) 1. Have you ever been without a best friend? 2. Do you ever prefer to hang around with friends who are older than you (at least two years)? 3. Do you ever date individuals who are much older/younger (by four or more years)? 4. Have you ever had someone that you dated that you argued with all the time? 5. Have you ever associated with other young people who are known to be gang involved or are loosely associated with a gang? 6. How often do you have frequent or longstanding arguments with other youth? 7. Do you ever gossip or spread rumors about other youth? 8. Have you ever bullied or were cruel to someone your own age? 9. Do other youth lie, gossip or spread rumors about you? 10. Have you ever been bullied or have other youth been cruel to you?

Substance Use/Abuse (2) 1. Have you ever used highly addictive drugs (crack, cocaine, heroin)? 2. Have you ever traded sex for drugs?

Continued

Table 3. 75 items selected from GRAD

Table 3 continued

Personality/Behavior con’t. (26) 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 can’t 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 don’t belong anywhere because of the color of your skin or the family you come from?

Trauma (4) 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 a victim of a crime?

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. Have you ever lied with a straight face and gotten away with something? 4. Have you ever tried to cover up your actions after you have done something wrong? 5. Have you ever felt like you didn’t belong in your community? 6. Have you ever felt like you didn’t belong in your school or with your classmates? Table 3 continued 7. Do you ever feel like your mistakes or misbehaviors are someone else's fault?

Health Services (5) 1. Have you ever been sexually active? 2. Have you ever been pregnant or you have impregnated someone else? 3. Have you ever engaged in unprotected sex? 4. Have you had sex with more than one partner? 5. Have you ever taken money for a sexual act?

Family/Parenting (1) 1. Do your family members ever seem to go out of their way to NOT upset you?

Peers/Significant Relationships (7) 1. Have you ever been without a best friend? 2. Have you ever associated with other young people who are known to be gang involved or are loosely associated with a gang? 3. How often do you have frequent or longstanding arguments with other youth? 4. Do you ever gossip or spread rumors about other youth? 5. Have you ever bullied or were cruel to someone your own age? 6. Do other youth lie, gossip or spread rumors about you? 7. Have you ever been bullied or have other youth been cruel to you?

Substance Use/Abuse (2) 1. Have you ever used highly addictive drugs (crack, cocaine, heroin)? 2. Have you ever traded sex for drugs?

Personality/Behavior (13) 1. Do you ever have difficulty controlling your anger? 2. Do you ever have trouble paying attention or concentrating? 3. Are you ever high strung or tense? 4. Do you ever have a hard time sitting still? 5. Do you ever try to get attention from someone any way you can? 6. Do you ever destroy things that belong to you when you get angry? 7. Do you ever yell, shout or curse too much? 8. Do you ever get into a motor vehicle with others who drive under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol? 9. Do you ever do things to hurt your body, like cutting yourself? 10. Do you ever do things that are dangerous, like jumping from high places, moving cars etc.? 11. Do you ever feel like you can’t trust anyone? 12. Have you ever felt like you were physically numb to pain? 13. Do you ever feel like you don’t belong anywhere because of the color of your skin or the family you come from?

Sociability (2) 1. Do you ever get bored easily? 2. Are you ever cold and unfeeling towards others?

Accountability (1) 1. Have you ever felt like you didn’t belong in your community?

Health Services (1) 1. Have you ever taken money for a sexual act?

Table 4. 27 Variables Omitted from Item Selection

Family/Parenting (7) 1. How often do you get into fights with adults who live in your home? 2. Do you ever feel that you are not welcome to stay in your home? 3. Are you ever at-risk of harm, or are you ever in physical danger when you are in your home? 4. 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)? 5. Do you ever become more uncontrollable after you have been punished? 6. Does your relationship with your mother ever feel not so good? 7. Does your relationship with your father ever feel not so good?

Peers/Significant Relationships (3) 1. Do you ever prefer to hang around with friends who are older than you (at least two years)? 2. Do you ever date individuals who are much older/younger (by four or more years)? 3. Have you ever had someone that you dated that you argued with all the time?

Personality/Behavior (13) 1. Do you ever exaggerate how good you are at doing something? 2. Are you ever nervous or do you ever get startled easily? 3. Do you ever try to get even with people when they do something to you? 4. Have you ever threatened to harm people? 5. Have you ever been physically aggressive towards others? 6. Do you ever have bad dreams or nightmares? 7. Do you ever have difficulty sleeping? 8. Have you ever lost interest in things you used to enjoy? 9. Do you ever feel sad, moody, blue or depressed? 10. Have you ever experienced a major change in appetite (either increase or decrease)? 11. Do you ever have panic attacks? 12. Do you ever have difficulty breathing, pain in your chest, or it feels like your heart is pounding too much? 13. Do you ever feel like you think about or talk about sex too much?

Sociability (6) 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? 5. Do you ever try to manipulate or use others? 6. Are you ever 'slick' or charming, but not really sincere?

Continued

Table 5. Final Item Selection from GRAD

Table 5 continued

Accountability (5) 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. Have you ever lied with a straight face and gotten away with something? 4. Have you ever tried to cover up your actions after you have done something wrong? 5. Do you ever feel like your mistakes or misbehaviors are someone else's fault?

Health Services (4) 1. Have you ever been sexually active? 2. Have you ever been pregnant or you have impregnated someone else? 3. Have you ever engaged in unprotected sex? 4. Have you had sex with more than one partner?

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Race/Ethnicity 506 1 6 1.53 .686 Age 506 7 19 14.93 1.824 No Responsibility For Actions 506 0 2 .60 .735 No Guilt When Caught 506 0 2 .60 .716 Blames Others 506 0 2 .45 .677 Lies With Straight Face 506 0 2 .68 .736 Covers Up Wrong Doings 506 0 2 .64 .691 Manipulates Others 506 0 2 .35 .613 Lack Of Belonging To School 506 0 2 .38 .656 Academic Difficulty 506 0 2 .86 .770 School Behavior Difficulty 506 0 2 .72 .794 Teacher Conflict 506 0 2 .53 .731 Learning Problems 506 0 2 .38 .656 Tries To Get Even 506 0 2 .53 .690 Threatens To Harm 506 0 2 .40 .647 Physically Aggressive 506 0 2 .50 .679 Lost Interest In Past Enjoyments 506 0 2 .36 .592 Moody - Depressed 506 0 2 .54 .665 Appetite Change 506 0 2 .30 .573 Panic Attacks 506 0 2 .08 .319 Difficulty Breathing 506 0 2 .19 .464 Nervous 506 0 2 .30 .547 Bad Dreams 506 0 2 .31 .569 Trouble Sleeping 506 0 2 .39 .651

Continued

Table 6. Descriptive Statistics, Boys – Sample 1

Table 6 continued

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Inflated Sense Of Abilities 506 0 2 .41 .627 Excessive Self Worth 506 0 2 .22 .511 Feels More Deserving 506 0 2 .24 .529 Charming But Insincere 506 0 2 .43 .648 Exaggerates Abilities 506 0 2 .48 .669 Preoccupied With Sex 506 0 2 .20 .504 Difficulty Keeping Job 506 0 2 .08 .335 Job Responsibilities Difficulty 506 0 2 .09 .352 Adult-Youth Conflict 506 0 2 .53 .720 Youth Not Welcome Home 506 0 2 .22 .516 Youth At Risk At Home 506 0 2 .07 .309 Harsh Punishment 506 0 2 .32 .601 Uncontrollable After Punishment 506 0 2 .41 .658 Poor Mother Relation 506 0 2 .43 .664 Poor Father Relation 506 0 2 .63 .822 Sexually Active 506 0 2 .54 .736 Involved With Pregnancy 506 0 2 .08 .337 Engage In Unprotected Sex 506 0 2 .24 .539 Has Multi Sex Partners 506 0 2 .29 .598 Prefers Older Friends 506 0 2 .59 .709 Older Dating 506 0 2 .19 .476 Dating Conflicts 506 0 2 .20 .484 Physical Victimization 506 0 2 .25 .560 Sexual Victimization 506 0 2 .06 .288 History Of Neglect 506 0 2 .21 .494 Victim Of A Crime 506 0 2 .25 .509

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Race/Ethnicity 506 1 6 1.58 .822 Age 506 6 19 14.88 1.811 No Responsibility For Actions 506 0 2 .59 .735 No Guilt When Caught 506 0 2 .55 .711 Blames Others 506 0 2 .45 .679 Lies With Straight Face 506 0 2 .71 .759 Covers Up Wrong Doings 506 0 2 .64 .719 Manipulates Others 506 0 2 .31 .574 Lack Of Belonging To School 506 0 2 .33 .612 Academic Difficulty 506 0 2 .86 .807 School Behavior Difficulty 506 0 2 .72 .783 Teacher Conflict 506 0 2 .54 .706 Learning Problems 506 0 2 .34 .640 Tries To Get Even 506 0 2 .51 .696 Threatens To Harm 506 0 2 .40 .632 Physically Aggressive 506 0 2 .50 .676 Lost Interest In Past Enjoyments 506 0 2 .35 .582 Moody - Depressed 506 0 2 .49 .639 Appetite Change 506 0 2 .28 .562 Panic Attacks 506 0 2 .07 .294 Difficulty Breathing 506 0 2 .15 .419 Nervous 506 0 2 .32 .575 Bad Dreams 506 0 2 .26 .529 Trouble Sleeping 506 0 2 .33 .616

Continued

Table 7. Descriptive Statistics, Boys – Sample 2

Table 7 continued

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Inflated Sense Of Abilities 506 0 2 .39 .623 Excessive Self Worth 506 0 2 .19 .468 Feels More Deserving 506 0 2 .20 .481 Charming But Insincere 506 0 2 .37 .586 Exaggerates Abilities 506 0 2 .40 .629 Preoccupied With Sex 506 0 2 .19 .519 Difficulty Keeping Job 506 0 2 .07 .303 Job Responsibilities Difficulty 506 0 2 .07 .284 Adult-Youth Conflict 506 0 2 .56 .721 Youth Not Welcome Home 506 0 2 .23 .536 Youth At Risk At Home 506 0 2 .09 .348 Harsh Punishment 506 0 2 .32 .614 Uncontrollable After Punishment 506 0 2 .44 .679 Poor Mother Relation 506 0 2 .44 .688 Poor Father Relation 506 0 2 .57 .783 Sexually Active 506 0 2 .56 .756 Involved With Pregnancy 506 0 2 .08 .297 Engage In Unprotected Sex 506 0 2 .24 .558 Has Multi Sex Partners 506 0 2 .30 .633 Prefers Older Friends 506 0 2 .61 .740 Older Dating 506 0 2 .26 .557 Dating Conflicts 506 0 2 .19 .490 Physical Victimization 506 0 2 .17 .467 Sexual Victimization 506 0 2 .06 .292 History Of Neglect 506 0 2 .18 .489 Victim Of A Crime 506 0 2 .27 .529

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Race/Ethnicity 736 1 6 1.65 .821 Age 736 10 18 14.86 1.505 No Responsibility For Actions 736 0 2 .67 .773 No Guilt When Caught 736 0 2 .72 .769 Blames Others 736 0 2 .51 .719 Lies With Straight Face 736 0 2 .81 .792 Covers Up Wrong Doings 736 0 2 .72 .743 Manipulates Others 736 0 2 .40 .646 Lack Of Belonging To School 736 0 2 .48 .730 Academic Difficulty 736 0 2 .76 .806 School Behavior Difficulty 736 0 2 .67 .798 Teacher Conflict 736 0 2 .52 .702 Learning Problems 736 0 2 .25 .562 Tries To Get Even 736 0 2 .61 .743 Threatens To Harm 736 0 2 .48 .674 Physically Aggressive 736 0 2 .55 .692 Lost Interest In Past Enjoyments 736 0 2 .53 .720 Moody-Depressed 736 0 2 .78 .760 Appetite Change 736 0 2 .43 .695 Panic Attacks 736 0 2 .19 .477 Difficulty Breathing 736 0 2 .28 .546 Bad Dreams 736 0 2 .42 .651 Trouble Sleeping 736 0 2 .50 .709 Nervous 736 0 2 .42 .665

Continued

Table 8. Descriptive Statistics, Girls

Table 8 continued

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Inflated Sense Of Abilities 736 0 2 .38 .618 Excessive Self Worth 736 0 2 .26 .537 Feels More Deserving 736 0 2 .28 .548 Charming But Insincere 736 0 2 .44 .642 Exaggerates Abilities 736 0 2 .42 .665 Preoccupied With Sex 736 0 2 .21 .536 Difficulty Keeping Job 736 0 2 .06 .272 Job Responsibilities Difficulty 736 0 2 .07 .294 Adult-Youth Conflict 736 0 2 .86 .821 Youth Not Welcome Home 736 0 2 .47 .728 Youth At Risk At Home 736 0 2 .12 .399 Harsh Punishment 736 0 2 .36 .627 Uncontrollable After Punishment 736 0 2 .58 .750 Poor Mother Relation 736 0 2 .75 .804 Poor Father Relation 736 0 2 .78 .878 Sexually Active 736 0 2 .71 .773 Involved With Pregnancy 736 0 2 .18 .480 Engage In Unprotected Sex 736 0 2 .40 .639 Has Multi Sex Partners 736 0 2 .34 .596 Prefers Older Friends 736 0 2 .81 .823 Older Dating 736 0 2 .40 .703 Dating Conflicts 736 0 2 .32 .597 Physical Victimization 736 0 2 .26 .574 Sexual Victimization 736 0 2 .24 .523 History Of Neglect 736 0 2 .26 .561 Victim Of A Crime 736 0 2 .26 .530

Race Age No Respons. No Guilt Blames Lies Covers Lack Others Up Belonging Race 1 -0.063 0.146 0.130 0.092 0.182 0.149 0.071 Age -0.063 1 -0.125 -0.077 -0.142 -.085 -0.065 -0.063 No 0.146 -0.125 1 0.633 0.621 0.611 0.608 0.366 Responsibility No Guilt 0.130 -0.077 0.633 1 0.561 0.544 0.576 0.318 Blames Othesr 0.092 -0.142 0.621 0.561 1 0.521 0.537 0.380 Lies 0.182 -0.085 0.611 0.544 0.521 1 0.715 0.313 Covers Up 0.149 -0.065 0.608 0.576 0.537 0.715 1 0.290 Lack Belonging 0.071 -0.063 0.366 0.318 0.380 0.313 0.290 1 Nervous 0.098 0.003 0.189 0.242 0.142 0.226 0.234 0.220 Bad Dreams 0.116 0.016 0.071 0.092 0.061 0.075 0.067 0.065 Trouble Sleeping 0.058 0.048 0.155 0.188 0.183 0.201 0.255 0.288 Lost Interest -0.001 0.079 0.239 0.285 0.305 0.328 0.442 0.510 Moody/Dep. -0.059 0.110 0.324 0.381 0.427 0.455 0.630 0.732 Appetite Change -0.118 0.142 0.408 0.477 0.549 0.581 0.818 0.955 Panic Attacks -0.176 0.173 0.492 0.573 0.671 0.708 1.006 1.177 Difficulty -0.235 0.204 0.577 0.670 0.793 0.834 1.194 1.400 Breathing Physically -0.293 0.236 0.661 0.766 0.914 0.961 1.382 1.622 aggressive Threatens -0.351 0.267 0.745 0.862 1.036 1.087 1.570 1.844 Tries to Get -0.410 0.299 0.830 0.958 1.158 1.214 1.758 2.067 Even Academic -0.468 0.330 0.914 1.055 1.280 1.340 1.945 2.289 Difficulty School Behavior -0.527 0.361 0.998 1.151 1.402 1.467 2.133 2.512 Difficulty Teacher Conflict -0.585 0.393 1.083 1.247 1.524 1.594 2.321 2.734 Adult Youth -0.644 0.424 1.167 1.344 1.646 1.720 2.509 2.956 Conflict Youth Not -0.702 0.455 1.251 1.440 1.768 1.847 2.697 3.179 Welcome Youth at Risk -0.761 0.487 1.335 1.536 1.890 1.973 2.885 3.401 Harsh -0.819 0.518 1.420 1.632 2.012 2.100 3.073 3.624 Punishment Uncontrollable -0.878 0.550 1.504 1.729 2.134 2.226 3.260 3.846

Continued

Table 9. Correlation Matrix, Boys

Table 9 continued

Race Age No No Guilt Blames Lies Covers Up Lack Respons. Others Belonging Poor Mom 0.060 -0.015 0.394 0.348 0.327 0.392 0.353 0.287 Relation Poor Dad 0.152 -0.064 0.363 0.348 0.293 0.304 0.293 0.225 Relation Sexually 0.163 0.293 0.092 0.126 0.032 0.215 0.204 0.073 Active Pregnancy 0.106 0.171 -0.007 0.018 -0.042 0.083 0.079 0.063 Unprotected 0.142 0.219 0.055 0.079 -0.018 0.178 0.143 0.077 Sex Multi Sex 0.201 0.213 0.029 0.083 -0.021 0.172 0.172 0.073 Partners Older Friends 0.241 0.073 0.197 0.282 0.125 0.294 0.268 0.141 Older Dating 0.159 0.135 0.062 0.105 0.005 0.187 0.166 0.062 Dating 0.122 0.168 0.086 0.148 0.008 0.161 0.152 0.051 Conflicts Inflated 0.140 0.011 0.247 0.254 0.262 0.315 0.286 0.217 Abilities Excessive 0.155 -0.085 0.283 0.298 0.328 0.349 0.296 0.177 Self Worth More 0.112 -0.077 0.311 0.272 0.349 0.312 0.314 0.177 Deserving Manipulates 0.132 -0.117 0.494 0.447 0.488 0.449 0.461 0.314 Charming, 0.172 -0.003 0.371 0.385 0.354 0.458 0.448 0.286 Insincere Exaggerates 0.218 -0.065 0.325 0.375 0.312 0.336 0.372 0.205 Abilities Learning 0.035 -0.064 0.232 0.241 0.236 0.207 0.193 0.304 Problems Preoccupied 0.140 0.083 0.183 0.182 0.106 0.237 0.247 0.136 With Sex Diff Keep Job -0.008 0.142 0.118 0.068 0.067 0.104 0.108 0.117 Job Resp. -0.014 0.115 0.170 0.164 0.106 0.121 0.145 0.154 Difficulty Physical 0.001 0.025 0.118 0.157 0.129 0.115 0.150 0.161 Victimization Sexual 0.031 0.000 0.091 0.071 0.090 0.074 0.067 0.003 Victimization Neglect 0.096 -0.044 0.185 0.176 0.176 0.193 0.186 0.198 Victim of 0.074 0.097 0.117 0.156 0.092 0.188 0.195 0.102 Crime

Continued

Table 9 continued

Nervous Bad Trouble Lost Moody/ Appetite Panic Diff. Dreams Sleeping Interest Dep. Change Attacks Breathing Race 0.098 0.116 0.058 0.091 0.074 0.112 0.013 0.060 Age 0.003 0.016 0.048 0.065 0.012 0.037 0.021 0.039 No 0.189 0.071 0.155 0.215 0.233 0.148 0.045 0.064 Responsibility No Guilt 0.242 0.092 0.188 0.262 0.260 0.250 0.103 0.129 Blames Othesr 0.142 0.061 0.183 0.248 0.228 0.165 0.083 0.072 Lies 0.226 0.075 0.201 0.225 0.261 0.229 0.093 0.119 Covers Up 0.234 0.109 0.229 0.281 0.290 0.278 0.142 0.174 Lack Belonging 0.220 0.163 0.209 0.298 0.368 0.303 0.151 0.165 Nervous 1 0.331 0.339 0.228 0.347 0.301 0.315 0.266 Bad Dreams 0.064 1 0.475 0.329 0.361 0.372 0.301 0.411 Trouble 0.321 0.475 1 0.361 0.430 0.363 0.312 0.335 Sleeping Lost Interest 0.578 0.329 0.361 1 0.415 0.416 0.218 0.269 Moody/Dep. 0.835 0.361 0.430 0.415 1 0.416 0.249 0.321 Appetite Change 1.092 0.372 0.363 0.416 0.416 1 0.290 0.372 Panic Attacks 1.349 0.301 0.312 0.218 0.249 0.290 1 0.416 Difficulty 1.605 0.411 0.335 0.269 0.321 0.372 0.416 1 Breathing Physically 1.862 0.215 0.227 0.249 0.333 0.302 0.179 0.205 aggressive Threatens 2.119 0.184 0.223 0.281 0.332 0.294 0.238 0.255 Tries to Get 2.376 0.222 0.251 0.333 0.341 0.346 0.159 0.230 Even Academic 2.633 0.051 0.181 0.199 0.226 0.184 0.073 0.054 Difficulty School Behavior 2.890 0.088 0.151 0.202 0.247 0.214 0.092 0.086 Difficulty Teacher Conflict 3.147 0.037 0.127 0.212 0.231 0.159 0.121 0.089 Adult Youth 3.404 0.022 0.108 0.186 0.206 0.184 0.094 0.063 Conflict Youth Not 3.661 0.172 0.145 0.220 0.195 0.220 0.097 0.153 Welcome Youth at Risk 3.918 0.103 0.102 0.127 0.151 0.135 0.047 0.076 Harsh 4.175 0.048 0.099 0.215 0.196 0.195 0.092 0.068 Punishment Uncontrollable 4.432 0.091 0.194 0.268 0.282 0.254 0.112 0.089

Continued

Table 9 continued

Nervous Bad Trouble Lost Moody/ Appetite Panic Diff. Dreams Sleeping Interest Dep. Change Attacks Breathing Poor Mom 0.179 0.071 0.117 0.235 0.237 0.180 0.097 0.091 Relation Poor Dad 0.135 0.098 0.119 0.209 0.180 0.131 0.035 0.072 Relation Sexually 0.077 0.196 0.138 0.207 0.155 0.143 0.081 0.185 Active Pregnancy 0.046 0.057 0.007 0.105 0.087 0.163 0.056 0.076 Unprotected 0.135 0.190 0.145 0.147 0.185 0.171 0.067 0.183 Sex Multi Sex 0.115 0.206 0.141 0.172 0.168 0.191 0.075 0.192 Partners Older Friends 0.237 0.203 0.175 0.235 0.197 0.203 0.109 0.196 Older Dating 0.203 0.263 0.185 0.183 0.183 0.211 0.155 0.165 Dating 0.133 0.229 0.173 0.220 0.195 0.266 0.127 0.245 Conflicts Inflated 0.162 0.194 0.235 0.260 0.257 0.278 0.109 0.232 Abilities Excessive 0.140 0.105 0.145 0.184 0.207 0.220 0.125 0.136 Self Worth More 0.135 0.067 0.141 0.194 0.197 0.220 0.108 0.126 Deserving Manipulates 0.188 0.091 0.196 0.237 0.306 0.214 0.149 0.089 Charming, 0.240 0.183 0.247 0.320 0.279 0.331 0.116 0.203 Insincere Exaggerates 0.321 0.232 0.265 0.166 0.303 0.290 0.149 0.251 Abilities Learning 0.300 0.116 0.296 0.188 0.284 0.197 0.181 0.115 Problems Preoccupied 0.160 0.214 0.164 0.199 0.163 0.228 0.114 0.193 With Sex Diff Keep Job 0.128 0.066 0.121 0.121 0.106 0.046 0.081 0.040 Job Resp. 0.142 0.025 0.099 0.134 0.151 0.049 0.060 0.081 Difficulty Physical 0.208 0.156 0.213 0.164 0.174 0.270 0.205 0.135 Victimization Sexual 0.092 0.088 0.174 0.003 0.107 0.114 0.025 0.042 Victimization Neglect 0.188 0.116 0.142 0.070 0.176 0.177 0.197 0.096 Victim of 0.210 0.222 0.325 0.224 0.237 0.249 0.168 0.203 Crime

Continued

Table 9 continued

Physically Threatens Tries to Academic School Teacher Adult- Youth Not Aggressive Get Even Difficulty Behavior Conflict Youth Welcome Difficulty Conflict Race 0.148 0.123 0.204 0.001 0.184 0.191 0.036 0.100 Age -0.090 -0.095 -.090 -0.082 -0.231 -0.168 -0.106 0.002 No 0.350 0.376 0.396 0.400 0.463 0.394 0.442 0.211 Responsibility No Guilt 0.350 0.409 0.395 0.352 0.433 0.393 0.422 0.227 Blames Othesr 0.318 0.384 0.421 0.376 0.412 0.392 0.435 0.186 Lies 0.350 0.378 0.379 0.293 0.399 0.378 0.382 0.251 Covers Up 0.385 0.446 0.439 0.324 0.413 0.401 0.345 0.248 Lack Belonging 0.287 0.283 0.280 0.373 0.392 0.353 0.305 0.201 Nervous 0.253 0.233 0.221 0.138 0.192 0.176 0.173 0.124 Bad Dreams 0.215 0.184 0.222 0.051 0.088 0.037 0.022 0.172 Trouble 0.227 0.223 0.251 0.181 0.151 0.127 0.108 0.145 Sleeping Lost Interest 0.249 0.281 0.333 0.199 0.202 0.212 0.186 0.220 Moody/Dep. 0.333 0.332 0.341 0.226 0.247 0.231 0.206 0.195 Appetite 0.302 0.294 0.346 0.184 0.214 0.159 0.184 0.220 Change Panic Attacks 0.179 0.238 0.159 0.073 0.092 0.121 0.094 0.097 Difficulty 0.205 0.255 0.230 0.054 0.086 0.089 0.063 0.153 Breathing Physically 1 0.620 0.533 0.218 0.380 0.383 0.353 0.275 aggressive Threatens 0.620 1 0.568 0.236 0.370 0.415 0.398 0.251 Tries to Get 0.533 0.568 1 0.186 0.339 0.389 0.329 0.218 Even Academic 0.218 0.236 0.186 1 0.511 0.409 0.357 0.133 Difficulty School Behavior 0.380 0.370 0.339 0.511 1 0.617 0.399 0.184 Difficulty Teacher 0.383 0.415 0.389 0.409 0.617 1 0.392 0.161 Conflict Adult Youth 0.353 0.398 0.329 0.357 0.399 0.392 1 0.380 Conflict Youth Not 0.275 0.251 0.218 0.133 0.184 0.161 0.380 1 Welcome Youth at Risk 0.280 0.245 0.220 0.140 0.167 0.198 0.272 0.444 Harsh 0.223 0.221 0.238 0.256 0.326 0.276 0.438 0.342 Punishment Uncontrollable 0.370 0.409 0.352 0.342 0.414 0.420 0.471 0.280

Continued

Table 9 continued

Physically Threatens Tries to Academic School Teacher Adult- Youth Not Aggressive Get Even Difficulty Behavior Conflict Youth Welcome Difficulty Conflict Poor Mom 0.301 0.265 0.251 0.276 0.310 0.297 0.487 0.426 Relation Poor Dad 0.261 0.275 0.193 0.228 0.296 0.299 0.321 0.234 Relation Sexually 0.205 0.181 0.192 0.024 0.070 0.100 0.015 0.169 Active Pregnancy 0.085 0.073 0.113 -0.043 -0.009 -0.010 -0.040 0.053 Unprotected 0.143 0.126 0.165 0.038 0.030 0.069 0.016 0.145 Sex Multi Sex 0.167 0.154 0.189 -0.032 0.027 0.044 -0.043 0.111 Partners Older Friends 0.234 0.219 0.274 0.092 0.211 0.228 0.156 0.189 Older Dating 0.160 0.179 0.237 0.004 0.088 0.087 0.034 0.138 Dating 0.224 0.196 0.274 0.076 0.078 0.119 0.047 0.122 Conflicts Inflated 0.299 0.325 0.421 0.093 0.143 0.204 0.256 0.218 Abilities Excessive 0.313 0.325 0.389 0.096 0.209 0.234 0.248 0.150 Self Worth More 0.312 0.358 0.410 0.113 0.192 0.252 0.287 0.208 Deserving Manipulates 0.367 0.420 0.403 0.301 0.378 0.350 0.362 0.193 Charming, 0.328 0.378 0.442 0.199 0.291 0.300 0.261 0.167 Insincere Exaggerates 0.291 0.361 0.404 0.141 0.264 0.243 0.197 0.154 Abilities Learning 0.165 0.193 0.216 0.382 0.341 0.253 0.202 0.053 Problems Preoccupied 0.217 0.165 0.237 0.078 0.134 0.128 0.121 0.192 With Sex Diff Keep Job 0.057 0.065 0.046 0.071 0.063 0.056 0.038 0.150 Job Resp. 0.059 0.101 0.079 0.095 0.068 0.066 0.062 0.118 Difficulty Physical 0.253 0.244 0.276 0.097 0.137 0.169 0.217 0.224 Victimization Sexual 0.053 0.079 0.101 0.073 0.093 0.050 0.098 0.013 Victimization Neglect 0.187 0.187 0.200 0.132 0.201 0.209 0.193 0.181 Victim of 0.225 0.191 0.211 0.099 0.109 0.097 0.069 0.111 Crime

Continued

Table 9 continued

Youth Harsh Poor Poor Sexually Pregnancy Unprotected Multi Sex at Risk Punishment Mom Rel. Dad Rel. Active Sex Partners Race 0.081 0.043 0.078 0.060 0.152 0.163 0.106 0.142 Age -.059 -0.039 -.113 -.015 -0.064 0.293 0.171 0.219 No 0.165 0.341 0.483 0.394 0.363 0.092 -0.007 0.055 Responsibility No Guilt 0.159 0.354 0.486 0.348 0.348 0.126 0.018 0.079 Blames Othesr 0.223 0.355 0.429 0.327 0.293 0.032 -0.042 -0.018 Lies 0.181 0.331 0.403 0.392 0.304 0.215 0.083 0.178 Covers Up 0.195 0.333 0.396 0.353 0.293 0.204 0.079 0.143 Lack Belonging 0.146 0.279 0.305 0.287 0.225 0.073 0.063 0.077 Nervous 0.108 0.180 0.257 0.179 0.135 0.077 0.046 0.135 Bad Dreams 0.103 0.048 0.091 0.071 0.098 0.196 0.057 0.190 Trouble 0.102 0.099 0.194 0.117 0.119 0.138 0.007 0.145 Sleeping Lost Interest 0.127 0.215 0.268 0.235 0.209 0.207 0.105 0.147 Moody/Dep. 0.151 0.196 0.282 0.237 0.180 0.155 0.087 0.185 Appetite 0.135 0.195 0.254 0.180 0.131 0.143 0.163 0.171 Change Panic Attacks 0.047 0.092 0.112 0.097 0.035 0.081 0.056 0.067 Difficulty 0.076 0.068 0.089 0.091 0.072 0.185 0.076 0.183 Breathing Physically 0.280 0.223 0.370 0.301 0.261 0.205 0.085 0.143 aggressive Threatens 0.245 0.221 0.409 0.265 0.275 0.181 0.073 0.126 Tries to Get 0.220 0.238 0.352 0.251 0.193 0.192 0.113 0.165 Even Academic 0.140 0.256 0.342 0.276 0.228 0.024 -0.043 0.038 Difficulty School Behavior 0.167 0.326 0.414 0.310 0.296 0.070 -0.009 0.030 Difficulty Teacher 0.198 0.276 0.420 0.297 0.299 0.100 -0.010 0.069 Conflict Adult Youth 0.272 0.438 0.471 0.487 0.321 0.015 -0.040 0.016 Conflict Youth Not 0.444 0.342 0.280 0.426 0.234 0.169 0.053 0.145 Welcome Youth at Risk 1 0.360 0.333 0.321 0.141 0.093 0.039 0.089 Harsh 0.360 1 0.457 0.344 0.234 0.041 -0.022 0.010 Punishment Uncontrollable 0.333 0.457 1 0.420 0.350 0.020 -0.029 -0.015

Continued

Table 9 continued

Youth at Harsh Poor Poor Sexually Pregnancy Unprotected Multi Sex Risk Punishment Mom Rel. Dad Rel. Active Sex Partners Poor Mom 0.321 0.344 0.420 1 0.370 0.138 0.049 0.100 Relation Poor Dad 0.141 0.234 0.350 0.370 1 0.140 0.089 0.145 Relation Sexually 0.093 0.041 0.020 0.138 0.140 1 0.231 0.604 Active Pregnancy 0.039 -0.022 -0.029 0.049 0.089 0.231 1 0.372 Unprotected 0.089 0.010 -0.015 0.100 0.145 0.604 0.372 1 Sex Multi Sex 0.043 0.008 -0.052 0.076 0.130 0.675 0.349 0.647 Partners Older Friends 0.160 0.173 0.169 0.201 0.211 0.431 0.218 0.355 Older Dating 0.179 0.050 0.012 0.106 0.145 0.437 0.289 0.437 Dating 0.082 0.031 0.039 0.098 0.179 0.349 0.202 0.326 Conflicts Inflated 0.154 0.218 0.184 0.187 0.173 0.247 0.109 0.161 Abilities Excessive 0.190 0.201 0.204 0.167 0.150 0.170 0.079 0.104 Self Worth More 0.213 0.216 0.224 0.173 0.132 0.121 0.063 0.081 Deserving Manipulates 0.196 0.310 0.380 0.317 0.203 0.057 0.020 0.072 Charming, 0.186 0.275 0.257 0.267 0.181 0.239 0.131 0.193 Insincere Exaggerates 0.147 0.166 0.203 0.160 0.184 0.165 0.093 0.133 Abilities Learning 0.059 0.168 0.268 0.127 0.124 0.023 -0.002 0.059 Problems Preoccupied 0.142 0.172 0.137 0.172 0.125 0.385 0.186 0.373 With Sex Diff Keep Job 0.053 0.075 0.103 0.116 0.091 0.078 0.023 0.073 Job Resp. -0.005 0.113 0.147 0.155 0.157 0.063 0.051 0.060 Difficulty Physical 0.249 0.175 0.206 0.245 0.166 0.070 0.049 0.103 Victimization Sexual -0.001 0.072 0.072 0.098 0.051 0.029 0.051 0.048 Victimization Neglect 0.209 0.126 0.155 0.233 0.166 0.018 0.067 0.042 Victim of 0.039 0.081 0.126 0.107 0.115 0.231 0.138 0.263 Crime

Continued

Table 9 continued

Older Older Dating Inflated Excessive More Manipulates Charming Friends Dating Conflicts Abilities Self Worth Deserving Others Insincere Race 0.241 0.159 0.122 0.140 0.155 0.112 0.132 0.172 Age 0.073 0.135 0.168 0.011 -0.085 -0.077 -0.117 -0.003 No 0.197 0.062 0.086 0.247 0.283 0.311 0.494 0.371 Responsibility No Guilt 0.282 0.105 0.148 0.254 0.298 0.272 0.447 0.385 Blames Othesr 0.125 0.005 0.008 0.262 0.328 0.349 0.488 0.354 Lies 0.294 0.187 0.161 0.315 0.349 0.312 0.449 0.458 Covers Up 0.268 0.166 0.152 0.286 0.296 0.314 0.461 0.448 Lack Belonging 0.141 0.062 0.051 0.217 0.177 0.177 0.314 0.286 Nervous 0.237 0.203 0.133 0.162 0.140 0.135 0.188 0.240 Bad Dreams 0.203 0.263 0.229 0.194 0.105 0.067 0.091 0.183 Trouble 0.175 0.185 0.173 0.235 0.145 0.141 0.196 0.247 Sleeping Lost Interest 0.235 0.183 0.220 0.260 0.184 0.194 0.237 0.320 Moody/Dep. 0.197 0.183 0.195 0.257 0.207 0.197 0.306 0.279 Appetite 0.203 0.211 0.266 0.278 0.220 0.220 0.214 0.331 Change Panic Attacks 0.109 0.155 0.127 0.109 0.125 0.108 0.149 0.116 Difficulty 0.196 0.165 0.245 0.232 0.136 0.126 0.089 0.203 Breathing Physically 0.234 0.160 0.224 0.299 0.313 0.312 0.367 0.328 aggressive Threatens 0.219 0.179 0.196 0.325 0.325 0.358 0.420 0.378 Tries to Get 0.274 0.237 0.274 0.421 0.389 0.410 0.403 0.442 Even Academic 0.092 0.004 0.076 0.093 0.096 0.113 0.301 0.199 Difficulty School Behavior 0.211 0.088 0.078 0.143 0.209 0.192 0.378 0.291 Difficulty Teacher 0.228 0.087 0.119 0.204 0.234 0.252 0.350 0.300 Conflict Adult Youth 0.156 0.034 0.047 0.256 0.248 0.287 0.362 0.261 Conflict Youth Not 0.189 0.138 0.122 0.218 0.150 0.208 0.193 0.167 Welcome Youth at Risk 0.160 0.179 0.082 0.154 0.190 0.213 0.196 0.186 Harsh 0.173 0.050 0.031 0.218 0.201 0.216 0.310 0.275 Punishment Uncontrollable 0.169 0.012 0.039 0.184 0.204 0.224 0.380 0.257

Continued

Table 9 continued

Older Older Dating Inflated Excessive More Manipulates Charming Friends Dating Conflicts Abilities Self Worth Deserving Others Insincere Poor Mom 0.201 0.106 0.098 0.187 0.167 0.173 0.317 0.267 Relation Poor Dad 0.211 0.145 0.179 0.173 0.150 0.132 0.203 0.181 Relation Sexually 0.431 0.437 0.349 0.247 0.170 0.121 0.057 0.239 Active Pregnancy 0.218 0.289 0.202 0.109 0.079 0.063 0.020 0.131 Unprotected 0.355 0.437 0.326 0.161 0.104 0.081 0.072 0.193 Sex Multi Sex 0.381 0.433 0.361 0.273 0.190 0.146 0.026 0.228 Partners Older Friends 1 0.439 0.324 0.285 0.194 0.140 0.146 0.321 Older Dating 0.439 1 0.356 0.128 0.127 0.100 0.082 0.224 Dating 0.324 0.356 1 0.237 0.114 0.112 0.069 0.260 Conflicts Inflated 0.285 0.128 0.237 1 0.561 0.554 0.270 0.465 Abilities Excessive 0.194 0.127 0.114 0.561 1 0.657 0.385 0.425 Self Worth More 0.140 0.100 0.112 0.554 0.657 1 0.417 0.400 Deserving Manipulates 0.146 0.082 0.069 0.270 0.385 0.417 1 0.573 Charming, 0.321 0.224 0.260 0.465 0.425 0.400 0.573 1 Insincere Exaggerates 0.285 0.170 0.193 0.483 0.408 0.415 0.306 0.392 Abilities Learning 0.113 0.064 0.092 0.112 0.090 0.081 0.228 0.191 Problems Preoccupied 0.275 0.274 0.224 0.243 0.171 0.159 0.247 0.322 With Sex Diff Keep Job 0.032 0.087 0.113 0.076 0.017 0.034 0.061 0.098 Job Resp. 0.037 0.002 0.054 0.074 0.059 0.081 0.164 0.125 Difficulty Physical 0.115 0.169 0.110 0.185 0.152 0.147 0.181 0.216 Victimization Sexual 0.047 0.092 0.048 0.075 0.090 0.095 0.156 0.165 Victimization Neglect 0.055 0.080 0.080 0.120 0.121 0.106 0.183 0.165 Victim of 0.187 0.246 0.241 0.201 0.108 0.094 0.164 0.232 Crime

Continued

Table 9 continued

Exaggerates Learning Preocc. Diff. Job Physical Sexual Neglect Victim Abilities Problems w/ Sex Keep Resp. Victim Victim Crime Job Diff Race 0.218 0.035 0.140 -.008 -.014 0.001 0.031 0.096 0.074 Age -0.065 -0.064 0.083 0.142 0.115 0.025 0.000 -0.044 0.097 No 0.325 0.232 0.183 0.118 0.170 0.118 0.091 0.185 0.117 Responsibility No Guilt 0.375 0.241 0.182 0.068 0.164 0.157 0.071 0.176 0.156 Blames Othesr 0.312 0.236 0.106 0.067 0.106 0.129 0.090 0.176 0.092 Lies 0.336 0.207 0.237 0.104 0.121 0.115 0.074 0.193 0.188 Covers Up 0.372 0.193 0.247 0.108 0.145 0.150 0.067 0.186 0.195 Lack Belonging 0.205 0.304 0.136 0.117 0.154 0.161 0.003 0.198 0.102 Nervous 0.321 0.300 0.160 0.128 0.142 0.208 0.092 0.188 0.210 Bad Dreams 0.232 0.116 0.214 0.066 0.025 0.156 0.088 0.116 0.222 Trouble 0.265 0.296 0.164 0.121 0.099 0.213 0.174 0.142 0.325 Sleeping Lost Interest 0.166 0.188 0.199 0.121 0.134 0.164 0.003 0.070 0.224 Moody/Dep. 0.303 0.284 0.163 0.106 0.151 0.174 0.107 0.176 0.237 Appetite 0.290 0.197 0.228 0.046 0.049 0.270 0.114 0.177 0.249 Change Panic Attacks 0.149 0.181 0.114 0.081 0.060 0.205 0.025 0.197 0.168 Difficulty 0.251 0.115 0.193 0.040 0.081 0.135 0.042 0.096 0.203 Breathing Physically 0.291 0.165 0.217 0.057 0.059 0.253 0.053 0.187 0.225 aggressive Threatens 0.361 0.193 0.165 0.065 0.101 0.244 0.079 0.187 0.191 Tries to Get 0.404 0.216 0.237 0.046 0.079 0.276 0.101 0.200 0.211 Even Academic 0.141 0.382 0.078 0.071 0.095 0.097 0.073 0.132 0.099 Difficulty School Behavior 0.264 0.341 0.134 0.063 0.068 0.137 0.093 0.201 0.109 Difficulty Teacher 0.243 0.253 0.128 0.056 0.066 0.169 0.050 0.209 0.097 Conflict Adult Youth 0.197 0.202 0.121 0.038 0.062 0.217 0.098 0.193 0.069 Conflict Youth Not 0.154 0.053 0.192 0.150 0.118 0.224 0.013 0.181 0.111 Welcome Youth at Risk 0.147 0.059 0.142 0.053 -.005 0.249 -0.001 0.209 0.039 Harsh 0.166 0.168 0.172 0.075 0.113 0.175 0.072 0.126 0.081 Punishment Uncontrollable 0.203 0.268 0.137 0.103 0.147 0.206 0.072 0.155 0.126

Continued

Table 9 continued

Exaggerates Learning Preocc. Diff. Job Physical Sexual Neglect Victim Abilities Problems w/ Sex Keep Resp. Victim Victim Crime Job Diff Poor Mom 0.160 0.127 0.172 0.116 0.155 0.245 0.098 0.233 0.107 Relation Poor Dad 0.184 0.124 0.125 0.091 0.157 0.166 0.051 0.166 0.115 Relation Sexually Active 0.165 0.023 0.385 0.078 0.063 0.070 0.029 0.018 0.231 Pregnancy 0.093 -0.002 0.186 0.023 0.051 0.049 0.051 0.067 0.138 Unprotected 0.133 0.059 0.373 0.073 0.060 0.103 0.048 0.042 0.263 Sex Multi Sex 0.215 0.017 0.340 0.039 0.057 0.078 0.041 0.049 0.247 Partners Older Friends 0.285 0.113 0.275 0.032 0.037 0.115 0.047 0.055 0.187 Older Dating 0.170 0.064 0.274 0.087 0.002 0.169 0.092 0.080 0.246 Dating Conflicts 0.193 0.092 0.224 0.113 0.054 0.110 0.048 0.080 0.241 Inflated Abilities 0.483 0.112 0.243 0.076 0.074 0.185 0.075 0.120 0.201 Excessive Self 0.408 0.090 0.171 0.017 0.059 0.152 0.090 0.121 0.108 Worth More Deserving 0.415 0.081 0.159 0.034 0.081 0.147 0.095 0.106 0.094 Manipulates 0.306 0.228 0.247 0.061 0.164 0.181 0.156 0.183 0.164 Charming, 0.392 0.191 0.322 0.098 0.125 0.216 0.165 0.165 0.232 Insincere Exaggerates 1 0.197 0.189 0.053 0.079 0.162 0.027 0.125 0.177 Abilities Learning 0.197 1 0.125 0.118 0.078 0.150 0.087 0.124 0.083 Problems Preoccupied 0.189 0.125 1 0.071 0.082 0.134 0.112 0.118 0.184 With Sex Diff Keep Job 0.053 0.118 0.071 1 0.550 0.062 -0.031 0.105 0.075 Job Resp. 0.079 0.078 0.082 0.550 1 0.019 -0.010 0.085 0.026 Difficulty Physical 0.162 0.150 0.134 0.062 0.019 1 0.328 0.517 0.353 Victimization Sexual 0.027 0.087 0.112 -.031 -.010 0.328 1 0.193 0.281 Victimization Neglect 0.125 0.124 0.118 0.105 0.085 0.517 0.193 1 0.230 Victim of Crime 0.177 0.083 0.184 0.075 0.026 0.353 0.281 0.230 1

Race Age No Respons. No Guilt Blames Lies Covers Lack Others Up Belonging Race 1 -0.030 0.035 0.153 0.092 0.138 0.185 -0.062 Age -0.030 1 -0.121 -0.031 -0.069 -.011 -0.012 -0.009 No 0.035 -0.121 1 0.646 0.585 0.624 0.602 0.343 Responsibility No Guilt 0.153 -0.031 0.646 1 0.527 0.639 0.580 0.251 Blames Othesr 0.092 -0.069 0.585 0.527 1 0.455 0.535 0.331 Lies 0.138 -0.011 0.624 0.639 0.455 1 0.659 0.260 Covers Up 0.185 -0.012 0.602 0.580 0.535 0.659 1 0.267 Lack Belonging -0.062 -0.009 0.343 0.251 0.331 0.260 0.267 1 Nervous 0.053 0.014 0.154 0.216 0.173 0.239 0.247 0.236 Bad Dreams 0.055 0.053 0.045 0.149 0.039 0.125 0.190 0.220 Trouble Sleeping 0.029 0.038 0.084 0.156 0.081 0.140 0.148 0.228 Lost Interest 0.088 0.009 0.215 0.269 0.224 0.261 0.242 0.307 Moody/Dep. 0.100 0.009 0.206 0.285 0.233 0.271 0.253 0.318 Appetite Change 0.114 0.073 0.042 0.172 0.073 0.181 0.176 0.210 Panic Attacks -0.013 0.036 0.061 0.087 0.054 0.093 0.106 0.213 Difficulty 0.060 0.075 0.015 0.050 0.018 0.099 0.093 0.156 Breathing Physically 0.182 -0.047 0.299 0.341 0.320 0.372 0.339 0.199 aggressive Threatens 0.158 -0.055 0.324 0.371 0.311 0.341 0.339 0.267 Tries to Get 0.164 -0.061 0.322 0.386 0.329 0.365 0.357 0.227 Even Academic -0.047 0.006 0.370 0.269 0.307 0.312 0.253 0.285 Difficulty School Behavior 0.069 -0.108 0.476 0.423 0.373 0.430 0.385 0.269 Difficulty Teacher Conflict 0.100 -0.135 0.332 0.342 0.275 0.346 0.316 0.257 Adult Youth 0.107 0.010 0.419 0.429 0.349 0.420 0.406 0.292 Conflict Youth Not 0.180 0.017 0.143 0.242 0.183 0.175 0.202 0.179 Welcome Youth at Risk 0.033 -0.014 0.069 0.039 0.101 0.099 0.133 0.091 Harsh 0.085 -0.102 0.321 0.338 0.276 0.328 0.377 0.167 Punishment Uncontrollable 0.127 -0.016 0.473 0.496 0.431 0.482 0.469 0.249

Continued

Table 10. Correlation Matrix, Girls

Table 10 continued

Nervous Bad Trouble Lost Moody/ Appetite Panic Diff. Dreams Sleeping Interest Dep. Change Attacks Breathing Race 0.053 0.055 0.029 0.088 0.100 0.114 -0.013 0.060 Age 0.014 0.053 0.038 0.009 0.009 0.073 0.036 0.075 No 0.154 0.045 0.084 0.215 0.206 0.042 0.061 0.015 Responsibility No Guilt 0.216 0.149 0.156 0.269 0.285 0.172 0.087 0.050 Blames Others 0.173 0.039 0.081 0.224 0.233 0.073 0.054 0.018 Lies 0.239 0.125 0.140 0.261 0.271 0.181 0.093 0.099 Covers Up 0.247 0.190 0.148 0.242 0.253 0.176 0.106 0.093 Lack Belonging 0.236 0.220 0.228 0.307 0.318 0.210 0.213 0.156 Nervous 1 0.458 0.424 0.410 0.476 0.386 0.408 0.371 Bad Dreams 0.458 1 0.574 0.462 0.500 0.543 0.370 0.480 Trouble 0.424 0.574 1 0.512 0.522 0.512 0.434 0.466 Sleeping Lost Interest 0.410 0.462 0.512 1 0.584 0.474 0.367 0.460 Moody/Dep. 0.476 0.500 0.522 0.584 1 0.504 0.373 0.446 Appetite Change 0.386 0.543 0.512 0.474 0.504 1 0.389 0.476 Panic Attacks 0.408 0.370 0.434 0.367 0.373 0.389 1 0.527 Difficulty 0.371 0.480 0.466 0.460 0.446 0.476 0.527 1 Breathing Physically 0.223 0.157 0.211 0.299 0.243 0.244 0.199 0.163 aggressive Threatens 0.271 0.210 0.259 0.315 0.335 0.289 0.247 0.200 Tries to Get 0.298 0.278 0.304 0.381 0.361 0.310 0.206 0.194 Even Academic 0.184 0.089 0.168 0.219 0.229 0.093 0.121 0.073 Difficulty School Behavior 0.217 0.140 0.207 0.247 0.251 0.185 0.135 0.113 Difficulty Teacher Conflict 0.172 0.157 0.182 0.256 0.249 0.187 0.146 0.149 Adult Youth 0.189 0.229 0.251 0.323 0.316 0.210 0.146 0.195 Conflict Youth Not 0.214 0.295 0.257 0.305 0.343 0.292 0.188 0.255 Welcome Youth at Risk 0.155 0.164 0.196 0.216 0.194 0.149 0.158 0.227 Harsh 0.120 0.067 0.101 0.160 0.133 0.096 0.106 0.097 Punishment Uncontrollable 0.166 0.110 0.167 0.267 0.243 0.212 0.136 0.100

Continued

Table 10 continued

Nervous Bad Trouble Lost Moody/ Appetite Panic Diff. Dreams Sleeping Interest Dep. Change Attacks Breathing Poor Mom 0.203 0.261 0.235 0.340 0.337 0.275 0.106 0.164 Relation Poor Dad 0.182 0.191 0.213 0.259 0.249 0.230 0.147 0.176 Relation Sexually 0.218 0.276 0.277 0.344 0.315 0.281 0.145 0.245 Active Pregnancy 0.101 0.117 0.124 0.138 0.161 0.161 0.134 0.107 Unprotected 0.177 0.202 0.260 0.295 0.285 0.212 0.120 0.239 Sex Multi Sex 0.206 0.209 0.230 0.267 0.297 0.215 0.128 0.217 Partners Older Friends 0.239 0.288 0.298 0.347 0.353 0.342 0.098 0.227 Older Dating 0.210 0.199 0.224 0.296 0.283 0.254 0.125 0.152 Dating 0.305 0.246 0.255 0.328 0.287 0.264 0.221 0.266 Conflicts Inflated 0.200 0.243 0.204 0.239 0.231 0.261 0.127 0.162 Abilities Excessive 0.134 0.118 0.085 0.164 0.198 0.091 0.044 0.050 Self Worth More 0.110 0.117 0.085 0.185 0.166 0.105 0.053 0.031 Deserving Manipulates 0.206 0.135 0.155 0.287 0.281 0.121 0.103 0.033 Charming, 0.229 0.177 0.161 0.293 0.300 0.206 0.075 0.122 Insincere Exaggerates 0.290 0.254 0.251 0.322 0.323 0.280 0.215 0.161 Abilities Learning 0.320 0.235 0.243 0.212 0.302 0.105 0.236 0.132 Problems Preoccupied 0.170 0.065 0.115 0.216 0.157 0.102 0.109 0.077 With Sex Diff Keep Job 0.082 0.130 0.068 0.111 0.140 0.046 0.147 0.147 Job Resp. 0.058 0.124 0.089 0.140 0.149 0.112 0.105 0.097 Difficulty Physical 0.309 0.273 0.338 0.335 0.326 0.261 0.253 0.254 Victimization Sexual 0.243 0.242 0.254 0.193 0.266 0.192 0.220 0.212 Victimization Neglect 0.201 0.292 0.276 0.238 0.272 0.255 0.156 0.179 Victim of 0.277 0.252 0.251 0.228 0.296 0.198 0.232 0.219 Crime

Continued

Table 10 continued

Physically Threatens Tries Academic School Teacher Adult- Youth Not Aggressive to Difficulty Behavior Conflict Youth Welcome Get Difficulty Conflict Even Race 0.182 0.158 0.164 -0.047 0.069 0.100 0.107 0.180 Age -0.047 -0.055 -.061 0.006 -0.108 -0.135 0.010 0.017 No 0.299 0.324 0.322 0.370 0.476 0.332 0.419 0.143 Responsibility No Guilt 0.341 0.371 0.386 0.269 0.423 0.342 0.429 0.242 Blames Others 0.320 0.311 0.329 0.307 0.373 0.275 0.349 0.183 Lies 0.372 0.341 0.365 0.312 0.430 0.346 0.420 0.175 Covers Up 0.339 0.339 0.357 0.253 0.385 0.316 0.406 0.202 Lack Belonging 0.199 0.267 0.227 0.285 0.269 0.257 0.292 0.179 Nervous 0.223 0.271 0.298 0.184 0.217 0.172 0.189 0.214 Bad Dreams 0.157 0.210 0.278 0.089 0.140 0.157 0.229 0.295 Trouble 0.211 0.259 0.304 0.168 0.207 0.182 0.251 0.257 Sleeping Lost Interest 0.299 0.315 0.381 0.219 0.247 0.256 0.323 0.305 Moody/Dep. 0.243 0.335 0.361 0.229 0.251 0.249 0.316 0.343 Appetite 0.244 0.289 0.310 0.093 0.185 0.187 0.210 0.292 Change Panic Attacks 0.199 0.247 0.206 0.121 0.135 0.146 0.146 0.188 Difficulty 0.163 0.200 0.194 0.073 0.113 0.149 0.195 0.255 Breathing Physically 1 0.665 0.472 0.137 0.412 0.400 0.355 0.280 aggressive Threatens 0.665 1 0.544 0.180 0.430 0.428 0.371 0.283 Tries to Get 0.472 0.544 1 0.143 0.330 0.354 0.333 0.286 Even Academic 0.137 0.180 0.143 1 0.476 0.353 0.298 0.057 Difficulty School Behavior 0.412 0.430 0.330 0.476 1 0.609 0.417 0.187 Difficulty Teacher 0.400 0.428 0.354 0.353 0.609 1 0.316 0.236 Conflict Adult Youth 0.355 0.371 0.333 0.298 0.417 0.316 1 0.429 Conflict Youth Not 0.280 0.283 0.286 0.057 0.187 0.236 0.429 1 Welcome Youth at Risk 0.153 0.244 0.185 0.045 0.156 0.160 0.207 0.352 Harsh 0.189 0.207 0.171 0.204 0.252 0.173 0.321 0.270 Punishment Uncontrollable 0.343 0.364 0.338 0.251 0.407 0.322 0.539 0.322

Continued

Table 10 continued

Physically Threatens Tries to Academic School Teacher Adult- Youth Not Aggressive Get Even Difficulty Behavior Conflict Youth Welcome Difficulty Conflict Poor Mom 0.299 0.321 0.296 0.156 0.319 0.277 0.492 0.464 Relation Poor Dad 0.252 0.218 0.187 0.215 0.252 0.214 0.352 0.276 Relation Sexually 0.254 0.254 0.266 0.173 0.253 0.175 0.319 0.311 Active Pregnancy 0.055 0.076 0.093 0.059 0.024 -0.008 0.045 0.108 Unprotected 0.206 0.210 0.229 0.155 0.198 0.143 0.237 0.237 Sex Multi Sex 0.252 0.263 0.229 0.135 0.144 0.162 0.202 0.247 Partners Older Friends 0.330 0.298 0.376 0.151 0.279 0.241 0.355 0.329 Older Dating 0.309 0.302 0.276 0.185 0.206 0.194 0.210 0.308 Dating 0.244 0.251 0.264 0.091 0.156 0.156 0.174 0.192 Conflicts Inflated 0.343 0.347 0.407 0.015 0.231 0.271 0.258 0.241 Abilities Excessive 0.300 0.316 0.379 0.043 0.232 0.305 0.205 0.269 Self Worth More 0.257 0.290 0.412 0.023 0.245 0.285 0.173 0.191 Deserving Manipulates 0.327 0.391 0.431 0.244 0.339 0.299 0.335 0.178 Charming, 0.356 0.349 0.418 0.159 0.337 0.249 0.293 0.236 Insincere Exaggerates 0.380 0.377 0.425 0.130 0.330 0.324 0.256 0.315 Abilities Learning 0.188 0.155 0.177 0.348 0.306 0.159 0.155 0.098 Problems Preoccupied 0.225 0.202 0.174 0.190 0.239 0.125 0.254 0.155 With Sex Diff Keep Job 0.124 0.136 0.059 0.145 0.146 0.126 0.073 0.068 Job Resp. 0.100 0.154 0.132 0.143 0.141 0.122 0.094 0.058 Difficulty Physical 0.265 0.311 0.273 0.085 0.183 0.148 0.250 0.273 Victimization Sexual 0.181 0.224 0.201 0.053 0.184 0.149 0.172 0.169 Victimization Neglect 0.200 0.230 0.236 0.100 0.218 0.188 0.178 0.191 Victim of 0.235 0.295 0.258 0.092 0.172 0.171 0.159 0.140 Crime

Continued

Table 10 continued

Youth Harsh Poor Poor Sexually Pregnancy Unprotected Multi Sex at Risk Punishment Mom Dad Active Sex Partners Rel. Rel. Race 0.033 0.085 0.127 0.167 0.087 0.130 0.080 0.084 Age -.014 -0.102 -.016 0.024 0.049 0.240 0.115 0.190 No 0.069 0.321 0.473 0.300 0.223 0.224 0.090 0.231 Responsibility No Guilt 0.039 0.338 0.496 0.359 0.263 0.309 0.080 0.274 Blames Others 0.101 0.276 0.431 0.299 0.207 0.219 0.078 0.277 Lies 0.099 0.328 0.482 0.345 0.291 0.349 0.092 0.280 Covers Up 0.133 0.377 0.469 0.331 0.307 0.312 0.057 0.282 Lack Belonging 0.091 0.167 0.249 0.255 0.232 0.182 0.014 0.190 Nervous 0.155 0.120 0.166 0.203 0.182 0.218 0.101 0.177 Bad Dreams 0.164 0.067 0.110 0.261 0.191 0.276 0.117 0.202 Trouble 0.196 0.101 0.167 0.235 0.213 0.277 0.124 0.260 Sleeping Lost Interest 0.216 0.160 0.267 0.340 0.259 0.344 0.138 0.295 Moody/Dep. 0.194 0.133 0.243 0.337 0.249 0.315 0.161 0.285 Appetite 0.149 0.096 0.212 0.275 0.230 0.281 0.161 0.212 Change Panic Attacks 0.158 0.106 0.136 0.106 0.147 0.145 0.134 0.120 Difficulty 0.227 0.097 0.100 0.164 0.176 0.245 0.107 0.239 Breathing Physically 0.153 0.189 0.343 0.299 0.252 0.254 0.055 0.206 aggressive Threatens 0.244 0.207 0.364 0.321 0.218 0.254 0.076 0.210 Tries to Get 0.185 0.171 0.338 0.296 0.187 0.266 0.093 0.229 Even Academic 0.045 0.204 0.251 0.156 0.215 0.173 0.059 0.155 Difficulty School Behavior 0.156 0.252 0.407 0.319 0.252 0.253 0.024 0.198 Difficulty Teacher 0.160 0.173 0.322 0.277 0.214 0.175 -0.008 0.143 Conflict Adult Youth 0.207 0.321 0.539 0.492 0.352 0.319 0.045 0.237 Conflict Youth Not 0.352 0.270 0.322 0.464 0.276 0.311 0.108 0.237 Welcome Youth at Risk 1 0.287 0.172 0.164 0.224 0.150 0.027 0.167 Harsh 0.287 1 0.393 0.296 0.284 0.116 0.033 0.069 Punishment Uncontrollable 0.172 0.393 1 0.440 0.299 0.325 0.062 0.270

Continued

Table 10 continued

Youth at Harsh Poor Poor Sexually Pregnancy Unprotected Multi Sex Risk Punishment Mom Dad Rel. Active Sex Partners Rel. Poor Mom 0.164 0.296 0.440 1 0.352 0.324 0.124 0.225 Relation Poor Dad 0.224 0.284 0.299 0.352 1 0.261 0.077 0.158 Relation Sexually 0.150 0.116 0.325 0.324 0.261 1 0.295 0.675 Active Pregnancy 0.027 0.033 0.062 0.124 0.077 0.295 1 0.369 Unprotected 0.167 0.069 0.270 0.225 0.158 0.675 0.369 1 Sex Multi Sex 0.162 0.063 0.284 0.191 0.158 0.575 0.260 0.578 Partners Older Friends 0.163 0.196 0.314 0.354 0.264 0.474 0.145 0.346 Older Dating 0.125 0.098 0.279 0.289 0.245 0.444 0.183 0.391 Dating 0.153 0.103 0.168 0.212 0.191 0.387 0.219 0.336 Conflicts Inflated 0.176 0.100 0.197 0.236 0.218 0.247 0.054 0.177 Abilities Excessive 0.151 0.096 0.220 0.220 0.188 0.281 0.052 0.187 Self Worth More 0.109 0.122 0.218 0.236 0.177 0.208 0.041 0.127 Deserving Manipulates 0.090 0.159 0.338 0.298 0.196 0.288 0.073 0.247 Charming, 0.158 0.162 0.329 0.269 0.186 0.297 0.073 0.293 Insincere Exaggerates 0.206 0.188 0.316 0.259 0.180 0.210 -0.001 0.181 Abilities Learning 0.101 0.051 0.149 0.105 0.065 0.177 0.051 0.170 Problems Preoccupied 0.117 0.124 0.273 0.220 0.170 0.414 0.141 0.447 With Sex Diff Keep Job 0.063 -0.002 0.088 0.074 0.122 0.140 0.108 0.156 Job Resp. -0.019 0.034 0.109 0.089 0.067 0.110 0.128 0.106 Difficulty Physical 0.366 0.220 0.198 0.259 0.193 0.269 0.053 0.229 Victimization Sexual 0.200 0.140 0.170 0.202 0.108 0.281 0.053 0.260 Victimization Neglect 0.195 0.137 0.121 0.248 0.160 0.207 0.107 0.193 Victim of 0.210 0.128 0.214 0.182 0.104 0.255 0.121 0.236 Crime

Continued

Table 10 continued

Older Older Dating Inflated Excessive More Manipulates Charming Friends Dating Conflicts Abilities Self Worth Deserving Others Insincere Race 0.206 0.139 0.130 0.103 0.110 0.110 0.045 0.092 Age 0.047 0.100 0.130 0.044 -0.011 -0.053 -0.063 -0.041 No 0.229 0.179 0.061 0.203 0.225 0.251 0.479 0.431 Responsibility No Guilt 0.340 0.267 0.175 0.260 0.313 0.300 0.399 0.440 Blames Others 0.212 0.205 0.166 0.210 0.283 0.272 0.486 0.428 Lies 0.345 0.308 0.220 0.271 0.250 0.271 0.462 0.484 Covers Up 0.308 0.239 0.216 0.250 0.257 0.259 0.409 0.417 Lack Belonging 0.182 0.140 0.156 0.190 0.168 0.147 0.297 0.290 Nervous 0.239 0.210 0.305 0.200 0.134 0.110 0.206 0.229 Bad Dreams 0.288 0.199 0.246 0.243 0.118 0.117 0.135 0.177 Trouble 0.298 0.224 0.255 0.204 0.085 0.085 0.155 0.161 Sleeping Lost Interest 0.347 0.296 0.328 0.239 0.164 0.185 0.287 0.293 Moody/Dep. 0.353 0.283 0.287 0.231 0.198 0.166 0.281 0.300 Appetite 0.342 0.254 0.264 0.261 0.091 0.105 0.121 0.206 Change Panic Attacks 0.098 0.125 0.221 0.127 0.044 0.053 0.103 0.075 Difficulty 0.227 0.152 0.266 0.162 0.050 0.031 0.033 0.122 Breathing Physically 0.330 0.309 0.244 0.343 0.300 0.257 0.327 0.356 aggressive Threatens 0.298 0.302 0.251 0.347 0.316 0.290 0.391 0.349 Tries to Get 0.376 0.276 0.264 0.407 0.379 0.412 0.431 0.418 Even Academic 0.151 0.185 0.091 0.015 0.043 0.023 0.244 0.159 Difficulty School Behavior 0.279 0.206 0.156 0.231 0.232 0.245 0.339 0.337 Difficulty Teacher 0.241 0.194 0.156 0.271 0.305 0.285 0.299 0.249 Conflict Adult Youth 0.355 0.210 0.174 0.258 0.205 0.173 0.335 0.293 Conflict Youth Not 0.329 0.308 0.192 0.241 0.269 0.191 0.178 0.236 Welcome Youth at Risk 0.163 0.125 0.153 0.176 0.151 0.109 0.090 0.158 Harsh 0.196 0.098 0.103 0.100 0.096 0.122 0.159 0.162 Punishment Uncontrollable 0.314 0.279 0.168 0.197 0.220 0.218 0.338 0.329

Continued

Table 10 continued

Older Older Dating Inflated Excessive More Manipulates Charming Friends Dating Conflicts Abilities Self Worth Deserving Others Insincere Poor Mom 0.354 0.289 0.212 0.236 0.220 0.236 0.298 0.269 Relation Poor Dad 0.264 0.245 0.191 0.218 0.188 0.177 0.196 0.186 Relation Sexually 0.474 0.444 0.387 0.247 0.281 0.208 0.288 0.297 Active Pregnancy 0.145 0.183 0.219 0.054 0.052 0.041 0.073 0.073 Unprotected 0.346 0.391 0.336 0.177 0.187 0.127 0.247 0.293 Sex Multi Sex 0.393 0.438 0.316 0.238 0.285 0.230 0.295 0.284 Partners Older Friends 1 0.554 0.310 0.367 0.295 0.286 0.272 0.321 Older Dating 0.554 1 0.287 0.256 0.248 0.217 0.257 0.314 Dating 0.310 0.287 1 0.209 0.224 0.159 0.223 0.280 Conflicts Inflated 0.367 0.256 0.209 1 0.577 0.524 0.345 0.375 Abilities Excessive 0.295 0.248 0.224 0.577 1 0.661 0.421 0.464 Self Worth More 0.286 0.217 0.159 0.524 0.661 1 0.407 0.421 Deserving Manipulates 0.272 0.257 0.223 0.345 0.421 0.407 1 0.620 Charming, 0.321 0.314 0.280 0.375 0.464 0.421 0.620 1 Insincere Exaggerates 0.341 0.263 0.168 0.461 0.381 0.401 0.368 0.366 Abilities Learning 0.113 0.116 0.097 0.041 0.098 0.097 0.176 0.139 Problems Preoccupied 0.223 0.352 0.175 0.141 0.208 0.161 0.302 0.240 With Sex Diff Keep Job 0.056 0.083 0.186 0.079 0.091 0.129 0.169 0.149 Job Resp. 0.075 0.041 0.142 0.101 0.122 0.139 0.211 0.119 Difficulty Physical 0.236 0.160 0.204 0.216 0.197 0.167 0.183 0.204 Victimization Sexual 0.175 0.150 0.175 0.169 0.161 0.155 0.169 0.151 Victimization Neglect 0.187 0.189 0.127 0.226 0.174 0.166 0.192 0.225 Victim of 0.196 0.210 0.247 0.205 0.204 0.125 0.210 0.205 Crime

Continued

Table 10 continued

Exaggerates Learning Preocc. Diff. Job Physical Sexual Neglect Victim Abilities Problems w/ Sex Keep Resp. Victim Victim Crime Job Diff Race 0.142 -0.023 0.052 0.013 -.021 0.023 0.056 0.047 0.006 Age -0.111 -0.018 0.031 0.116 0.009 0.075 0.085 0.017 0.075 No 0.278 0.223 0.233 0.136 0.221 0.141 0.084 0.176 0.119 Responsibility No Guilt 0.333 0.205 0.281 0.111 0.155 0.155 0.129 0.219 0.158 Blames Others 0.309 0.235 0.217 0.173 0.166 0.168 0.138 0.180 0.157 Lies 0.285 0.183 0.301 0.127 0.153 0.154 0.171 0.208 0.209 Covers Up 0.327 0.187 0.278 0.149 0.167 0.196 0.170 0.205 0.189 Lack Belonging 0.202 0.261 0.136 0.133 0.156 0.185 0.070 0.184 0.162 Nervous 0.290 0.320 0.170 0.082 0.058 0.309 0.243 0.201 0.277 Bad Dreams 0.254 0.235 0.065 0.130 0.124 0.273 0.242 0.292 0.252 Trouble 0.251 0.243 0.115 0.068 0.089 0.338 0.254 0.276 0.251 Sleeping Lost Interest 0.322 0.212 0.216 0.111 0.140 0.335 0.193 0.238 0.228 Moody/Dep. 0.323 0.302 0.157 0.140 0.149 0.326 0.266 0.272 0.296 Appetite 0.280 0.105 0.102 0.046 0.112 0.261 0.192 0.255 0.198 Change Panic Attacks 0.215 0.236 0.109 0.147 0.105 0.253 0.220 0.156 0.232 Difficulty 0.161 0.132 0.077 0.147 0.097 0.254 0.212 0.179 0.219 Breathing Physically 0.380 0.188 0.225 0.124 0.100 0.265 0.181 0.200 0.235 aggressive Threatens 0.377 0.155 0.202 0.136 0.154 0.311 0.224 0.230 0.295 Tries to Get 0.425 0.177 0.174 0.059 0.132 0.273 0.201 0.236 0.258 Even Academic 0.130 0.348 0.190 0.145 0.143 0.085 0.053 0.100 0.092 Difficulty School Behavior 0.330 0.306 0.239 0.146 0.141 0.183 0.184 0.218 0.172 Difficulty Teacher 0.324 0.159 0.125 0.126 0.122 0.148 0.149 0.188 0.171 Conflict Adult Youth 0.256 0.155 0.254 0.073 0.094 0.250 0.172 0.178 0.159 Conflict Youth Not 0.315 0.098 0.155 0.068 0.058 0.273 0.169 0.191 0.140 Welcome Youth at Risk 0.206 0.101 0.117 0.063 -0.019 0.366 0.200 0.195 0.210 Harsh - 0.188 0.051 0.124 0.034 0.220 0.140 0.137 0.128 Punishment 0.002 Uncontrollable 0.316 0.149 0.273 0.088 0.109 0.198 0.170 0.121 0.214

Continued

Table 10 continued

Exaggerates Learning Preocc. Diff. Job Physical Sexual Neglect Victim Abilities Problems w/ Sex Keep Resp. Victim Victim Crime Job Diff Poor Mom 0.259 0.105 0.220 0.074 0.089 0.259 0.202 0.248 0.182 Relation Poor Dad 0.180 0.065 0.170 0.122 0.067 0.193 0.108 0.160 0.104 Relation Sexually Active 0.210 0.177 0.414 0.140 0.110 0.269 0.281 0.207 0.255 Pregnancy -0.001 0.051 0.141 0.108 0.128 0.053 0.053 0.107 0.121 Unprotected 0.181 0.170 0.447 0.156 0.106 0.229 0.260 0.193 0.236 Sex Multi Sex 0.203 0.128 0.346 0.138 0.174 0.214 0.270 0.154 0.288 Partners Older Friends 0.341 0.113 0.223 0.056 0.075 0.236 0.175 0.187 0.196 Older Dating 0.263 0.116 0.352 0.083 0.041 0.160 0.150 0.189 0.210 Dating Conflicts 0.168 0.097 0.175 0.186 0.142 0.204 0.175 0.127 0.247 Inflated Abilities 0.461 0.041 0.141 0.079 0.101 0.216 0.169 0.226 0.205 Excessive Self 0.381 0.098 0.208 0.091 0.122 0.197 0.161 0.174 0.204 Worth More Deserving 0.401 0.097 0.161 0.129 0.139 0.167 0.155 0.166 0.125 Manipulates 0.368 0.176 0.302 0.169 0.211 0.183 0.169 0.192 0.210 Charming, 0.366 0.139 0.240 0.149 0.119 0.204 0.151 0.225 0.205 Insincere Exaggerates 1 0.168 0.197 0.112 0.114 0.252 0.173 0.201 0.207 Abilities Learning 0.168 1 0.169 0.117 0.080 0.200 0.227 0.143 0.180 Problems Preoccupied 0.197 0.169 1 0.122 0.102 0.190 0.207 0.129 0.181 With Sex Diff Keep Job 0.112 0.117 0.122 1 0.528 0.128 0.122 0.124 0.139 Job Resp. 0.114 0.080 0.102 0.528 1 0.025 0.012 0.077 0.036 Difficulty Physical 0.252 0.200 0.190 0.128 0.025 1 0.548 0.470 0.440 Victimization Sexual 0.173 0.227 0.207 0.122 0.012 0.548 1 0.338 0.476 Victimization Neglect 0.201 0.143 0.129 0.124 0.077 0.470 0.338 1 0.285 Victim of Crime 0.207 0.180 0.181 0.139 0.036 0.440 0.476 0.285 1

Continued

Number of RMSEA – RMSEA – 90% ECVI – Perfect Fit: Ho: Close Fit: Ho: Factors point estimate confidence point RMSEA = 0.00 RMSEA<=0.05 interval estimate 6 0.057 ( 0.055; 0.060) 5.780 0.000 0.000

7 0.053 ( 0.050; 0.056) 5.357 0.000 0.034

8 0.049 ( 0.046; 0.052) 4.994 0.000 0.667

9 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- -2- -3- -4- -5- -6- -7- -8- -9- 1 -School Problems 1.000 2 - Sexuality 0.016 1.000 3 - Employment 0.166 0.066 1.000 4 - CU Traits 0.499 0.050 0.195 1.000 5 - Parent-Child Conflict 0.330 0.080 0.197 0.327 1.000 6 - Victimization 0.280 0.119 0.130 0.198 0.158 1.000 7 - Internalizing Symptoms 0.221 0.255 0.206 0.150 0.099 0.294 1.000 8 - Narcissism 0.171 0.286 0.107 0.352 0.237 0.194 0.180 1.000 9 - Aggression 0.269 0.235 0.144 0.264 0.326 0.239 0.240 0.338 1.000

Table 12. Correlation Matrix for Nine-Factor Model (EFA)

100

-1- -2- -3- -4- -5- -6- -7- -8- -9- No Responsibility 0.179 -0.033 0.065 0.663 0.113 0.050 -0.082 0.038 -0.018 No Guilt When Caught 0.142 0.045 0.042 0.567 0.096 -0.017 0.036 0.037 0.068 Blames Others 0.118 -0.159 0.041 0.550 0.141 0.029 0.000 0.140 0.011 Lies With Straight Face 0.000 0.079 0.018 0.728 0.006 0.030 -0.043 0.066 0.061 Covers Up Wrong Doings -0.037 0.078 0.038 0.749 -0.007 0.022 0.049 -0.009 0.193 Manipulates Others 0.057 -0.119 0.045 0.442 0.047 0.072 0.005 0.203 0.176 Lack Of Belonging 0.432 -0.041 -0.006 0.032 0.108 -0.021 0.190 0.045 0.069 Academic Difficulty 0.589 0.012 0.015 0.094 0.059 0.030 -0.032 -0.032 -0.015 Teacher Conflict 0.569 0.070 0.010 0.023 0.067 0.060 -0.146 0.044 0.205 School Behavior Difficulty 0.792 0.033 -0.012 -0.004 0.026 -0.029 -0.079 0.033 0.120 Learning Problems 0.453 -0.041 0.102 0.025 -0.092 0.079 0.187 0.002 -0.097 Tries To Get Even 0.013 0.026 -0.004 0.194 0.033 0.114 0.079 0.199 0.445 Threatens To Harm 0.042 -0.019 0.035 0.157 0.026 0.014 0.058 0.008 0.755 Physically Aggressive 0.152 0.013 0.022 0.061 0.040 0.086 0.053 0.072 0.562 Inflated Sense of Abilities 0.033 0.083 0.038 -0.046 0.066 0.027 0.126 0.664 -0.016 Exaggerates Abilities 0.110 0.115 0.030 0.233 -0.157 0.012 0.087 0.370 0.085 Excessive Self-Worth -0.020 0.059 0.033 0.043 0.017 0.016 -0.073 0.766 -0.026 Feels More Deserving -0.028 -0.084 0.012 0.025 0.038 0.004 -0.079 0.781 0.115 Charming, Insincere 0.091 0.119 0.069 0.271 0.014 0.073 0.050 0.363 0.102 Nervous 0.133 -0.036 0.097 0.041 -0.059 0.149 0.381 0.023 0.007 Bad Dreams -0.007 0.096 0.026 -0.054 0.014 0.029 0.663 -0.006 0.023 Trouble Sleeping 0.037 -0.017 0.066 0.144 -0.022 0.141 0.639 0.075 -0.146 Lost Interest in Pleasure 0.006 0.057 0.027 0.048 0.277 -0.032 0.421 0.102 0.034 Moody/Depressed 0.130 0.029 0.004 0.071 0.075 0.022 0.498 0.009 0.107 Appetite Change 0.062 0.061 -0.062 -0.039 0.052 0.147 0.436 0.134 0.181 Panic Attacks -0.043 -0.009 0.150 -0.021 -0.024 0.104 0.418 -0.080 0.146 Difficulty Breathing 0.019 0.095 -0.052 -0.052 -0.013 -0.053 0.515 0.035 0.196 Difficulty Keeping Job 0.027 0.023 1.036 -0.120 -0.057 0.030 -0.098 -0.022 -0.049 Job Responsibility Diff. -0.040 -0.024 0.623 0.083 0.057 -0.112 0.006 0.053 0.009 Adult-Youth Conflict 0.229 -0.094 -0.026 0.041 0.508 0.076 -0.066 0.054 0.134 Youth Not Welcome in Home -0.090 0.070 0.124 -0.028 0.553 -0.025 0.132 0.050 0.082 Youth At Risk in Home -0.025 0.014 0.032 -0.088 0.464 0.059 -0.048 0.167 0.084 Harsh Punishment 0.130 -0.052 0.040 0.177 0.468 0.025 0.025 0.067 -0.098 Uncontrollable After Punishment 0.195 -0.131 0.049 0.190 0.453 0.005 0.102 -0.036 0.078 Poor Mother Relationship 0.056 0.050 0.052 0.182 0.594 0.078 -0.067 -0.079 0.037 Poor Father Relationship 0.191 0.142 0.008 0.143 0.362 0.044 -0.006 -0.054 0.025 Sexually Active -0.026 0.787 0.002 0.086 0.055 -0.049 -0.002 0.024 -0.054 Involved With Pregnancy 0.033 0.403 0.018 -0.067 -0.039 0.011 -0.062 0.063 0.115 Engages In Unprotected Sex 0.001 0.789 -0.016 0.032 -0.012 0.040 0.016 -0.065 -0.033 Has Multiple Sex Partners 0.013 0.779 -0.058 0.055 -0.101 -0.079 0.057 0.075 0.034 Prefers Older Friends 0.117 0.504 -0.023 0.040 0.079 0.016 0.048 0.052 0.000 Older Dating -0.025 0.528 0.105 -0.045 0.053 0.110 0.009 0.064 0.020 Dating Conflicts 0.047 0.449 0.082 -0.055 0.000 0.046 0.100 0.041 0.091 Preoccupied With Sex 0.004 0.356 -0.043 0.048 0.126 0.033 0.157 0.111 0.034 Physical Abuse History 0.063 0.014 -0.029 -0.108 0.150 0.803 -0.003 -0.003 0.151 Sexual Abuse History 0.009 -0.037 -0.080 0.021 -0.048 0.524 -0.014 0.123 -0.071 History Of Neglect 0.072 -0.030 0.085 0.025 0.051 0.563 -0.055 -0.123 0.104 Victim Of A Crime -0.006 0.152 0.031 0.101 -0.054 0.476 0.192 -0.012 -0.059

Table 13. Nine-Factor Structure of Psychopathy (CFA)

101

Factor 1: School Problems

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .773 5

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted Lack Of Belonging To School 2.48 4.983 .495 .748 Academic Difficulty 2.01 4.364 .592 .714 Teacher Conflict 2.34 4.601 .551 .729 School Behavior Difficulty 2.15 4.082 .671 .683 Learning Problems 2.49 5.185 .419 .770

Factor 2: Sexuality Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .827 8

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted Involved With Pregnancy 2.25 8.234 .404 .826 Engage In Unprotected Sex 2.09 6.942 .668 .792 Has Multi Sex Partners 2.04 6.610 .704 .785 Prefers Older Friends 1.74 6.717 .519 .816 Older Dating 2.15 7.432 .566 .807 Preoccupied With Sex 2.13 7.661 .435 .821 Sexually Active 1.79 6.097 .685 .788 Dating Conflicts 2.13 7.602 .485 .816

Continued

Table 14. Factor Reliabilities (Cronbach’s α) For Boys – Sample 1

102

Table 14 continued Factor 3: Employment

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .755 2

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted Difficulty Keeping Job .09 .124 .607 .(a) Job Responsibilities Difficulty .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

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .890 6

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted No Responsibility For Actions 2.73 7.561 .774 .859 No Guilt When Caught 2.73 7.898 .701 .871 Blames Others 2.88 8.101 .694 .872 Lies With Straight Face 2.65 7.774 .711 .870 Covers Up Wrong Doings 2.69 7.849 .751 .863 Manipulates Others 2.98 8.649 .612 .884

Continued

103

Table 14 continued Factor 5: Parent-Child Conflict

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .799 7

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted Adult Youth Conflict 2.09 6.134 .618 .755 Youth Not Welcome Home 2.40 7.239 .487 .781 Youth At Risk At Home 2.55 8.030 .417 .797 Harsh Punishment 2.30 6.824 .533 .773 Uncontrollable After Punishment 2.21 6.393 .611 .757 Poor Mother Relationship 2.19 6.290 .639 .751 Poor Father Relationship 1.99 6.170 .492 .789

Factor 6: Victimization

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .691 4

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted Physical Victimization .52 .896 .622 .519 Sexual Victimization .71 1.495 .412 .681 History Of Neglect .56 1.130 .472 .629 Victim Of A Crime .52 1.117 .459 .639

Continued

104

Table 14 continued Factor 7: Internalizing Symptoms

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .807 8

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted Nervous 2.16 6.870 .446 .796 Bad Dreams 2.16 6.405 .597 .773 Trouble Sleeping 2.08 6.110 .594 .773 Lost Interest In Past Enjoyments 2.11 6.606 .490 .790 Moody Depressed 1.93 6.131 .568 .778 Appetite Change 2.17 6.491 .558 .779 Panic Attacks 2.38 7.544 .458 .798 Difficulty Breathing 2.28 7.011 .498 .789

Factor 8: Narcissism

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .807 5

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted Inflated Sense Of Abilities 1.38 3.222 .652 .750 Exaggerates Abilities 1.31 3.368 .516 .797 Excessive Self Worth 1.57 3.557 .657 .756 Feels More Deserving 1.55 3.527 .643 .758 Charming But Insincere 1.36 3.379 .539 .788

Continued

105

Table 14 continued Factor 9: Aggression

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .812 3

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted Tries To Get Even .90 1.449 .620 .787 Threatens To Harm 1.03 1.441 .705 .701 Physically Aggressive .93 1.418 .665 .739

106

Parent- CU School Internalizing Aggression Narcissism Employment Child Sexuality Victimization Traits Problems Symptoms Conflict CU Traits 1

School .581(**) 1 Problems

Aggression .578(**) .478(**) 1

Narcissism .565(**) .356(**) .545(**) 1

Internalizing .355(**) .386(**) .484(**) .411(**) 1 Symptoms

Employment .193(**) .131(**) .133(**) .158(**) .174(**) 1

Parent-Child .604(**) .539(**) .512(**) .396(**) .355(**) .211(**) 1 Conflict

Sexuality .183(**) .145(**) .323(**) .416(**) .382(**) .064 .192(**) 1

Victimization .286(**) .308(**) .385(**) .273(**) .419(**) .081 .303(**) .213(**) 1

** significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 15. Factor Scale Correlations, Boys – Sample 1

107

Degree of RMSEA – RMSEA – 90% ECVI Perfect Fit: Ho: Close Fit: Ho: Parameter point estimate confidence RMSEA = 0.00 RMSEA<=0.05 Specificity interval All parameters free 0.059 (0.056,0.061) 6.199 0.00 0.00 to vary Item Loadings, 0.126 (0.124,0.129) 20.410 0.00 0.00 Factor Correlations Fixed Factor 0.063 (0.060,0.065) 6.744 0.00 0.00 Correlations Fixed

Item Loadings 0.077 (0.075,0.079) 8.952 0.00 0.00 Fixed

Table 16. Results of CFA, Boys-Sample 2

Model χ2 df RMSEA 90% CI Test for Comparison χ2 df p for close change change change RMSEA fit (Ho: RMSEA <.05) 1. All 2866.291 1044 .059 .056- .000 parameters .061 free to vary 2. All 10208.864 1127 .126 .124- .000 Model 1 vs. 7342.573 83 p<.001 parameters .129 2 fully specified 3. Factor 4350.920 1091 .077 .075- .000 Model 1 vs. 1484.629 47 p<.001 loadings .079 3 specified 4. Factor 3213.481 1080 .063 .060- .000 Model 1 vs. 347.19 36 p<.001 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

Discrepancy Between Free and Fixed Estimates Item or Correlation

Difficulty Keeping a Job - Employment -0.37 Tries to Get Even - Aggression 0.308

Exaggerates Abilities - Narcissism 0.263 Charming But Insincere - Narcissism 0.261 Uncontrollable After Punishment - Parent-Child Conflict 0.242 Sexual Victimization - Sexuality -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 RMSEA – RMSEA – 90% ECVI Perfect Fit: Ho: Close Fit: Ho: Parameter point estimate confidence RMSEA = 0.00 RMSEA<=0.05 Specificity interval Parameters free 0.067 (0.064,0.069) 7.433 0.00 0.00 to vary if discrepancy is ≥0.3 Parameters free 0.066 (0.063,0.068) 7.271 0.00 0.00 to vary if discrepancy is ≥0.2 Parameters free 0.064 (0.062,0.066) 6.999 0.00 0.00 to vary if discrepancy is ≥0.1

Table 19. Results of CFA when Model is Further Specified, Boys-Sample 2

109

Factor 1: School Problems

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .762 5

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted Lack Of Belonging To School 2.46 4.926 .451 .745 Academic Difficulty 1.92 4.054 .560 .710 School Behavior Difficulty 2.06 3.915 .645 .675 Teacher Conflict 2.25 4.312 .585 .700 Learning Problems 2.45 4.917 .422 .754

Factor 2: Sexuality

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .819 8

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted Preoccupied With Sex 2.24 8.115 .428 .812 Sexually Active 1.87 6.413 .695 .773 Involved With Pregnancy 2.35 8.951 .342 .821 Engage In Unprotected Sex 2.19 7.284 .682 .778 Has Multiple Sex Partners 2.13 6.928 .696 .773 Prefers Older Friends 1.82 7.107 .505 .807 Older Dating 2.17 7.576 .574 .793 Dating Conflicts 2.24 8.247 .413 .813

Continued

Table 20. Factor Reliabilities (Cronbach’s α), Boys – Sample 2

110

Table 20 continued

Factor 3: Employment

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .642 2

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted Difficulty Keeping Job .07 .081 .473 .(a) Job Responsibilities Difficulty .07 .092 .473 .(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

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .873 6

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted No Responsibility For Actions 2.65 7.306 .731 .841 No Guilt When Caught 2.69 7.570 .684 .850 Blames Others 2.79 7.767 .666 .853 Lies With Straight Face 2.53 7.224 .724 .843 Covers Up Wrong Doings 2.60 7.413 .720 .843 Manipulates Others 2.92 8.652 .524 .874

Continued

111

Table 20 continued

Factor 5: Parent-Child Conflict

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .762 7

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted Adult-Youth Conflict 2.09 5.706 .581 .710 Youth Not Welcome Home 2.43 6.574 .497 .732 Youth At Risk At Home 2.57 7.256 .454 .748 Harsh Punishment 2.34 6.267 .515 .726 Uncontrollable After Punishment 2.21 5.949 .548 .718 Poor Mother Relationship 2.21 5.915 .550 .717 Poor Father Relationship 2.08 6.316 .329 .775

Factor 6: Victimization

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .587 4

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted Physical Victimization .51 .809 .527 .379 Sexual Victimization .62 1.198 .290 .578 History Of Neglect .50 .856 .413 .478 Victim Of A Crime .41 .896 .292 .593

Continued

112

Table 20 continued

Factor 7: Internalizing Symptoms

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .794 8

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted Nervous 1.92 5.954 .460 .778 Bad Dreams 1.99 5.942 .525 .767 Trouble Sleeping 1.92 5.579 .555 .762 Lost Interest In Past Enjoyments 1.90 5.840 .496 .772 Moody Depressed 1.76 5.487 .561 .761 Appetite Change 1.97 5.777 .549 .763 Panic Attacks 2.18 6.848 .417 .787 Difficulty Breathing 2.09 6.339 .503 .773

Factor 8: Narcissism

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .815 5

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted Exaggerates Abilities 1.15 2.937 .559 .797 Inflated Sense Of Abilities 1.16 2.725 .692 .752 Excessive Self-Worth 1.36 3.216 .657 .770 Feels More Deserving 1.35 3.190 .649 .771 Charming But Insincere 1.18 3.121 .518 .806

Continued

113

Table 20 continued

Factor 9: Aggression

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .787 3

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted Tries To Get Even .90 1.359 .603 .740 Threatens To Harm 1.01 1.436 .651 .690 Physically Aggressive .91 1.366 .632 .706

114

Parent- CU School Internalizing Aggression Narcissism Employment Child Sexuality Victimization Traits Problems Symptoms Conflict CU Traits 1

School .617(**) 1 Problems

Aggression .572(**) .473(**) 1

Narcissism .556(**) .336(**) .572(**) 1

Internalizing .353(**) .378(**) .451(**) .440(**) 1 Symptoms

Employment .136(**) .143(**) .038 .038 .145(**) 1

Parent-Child .641(**) .533(**) .490(**) .388(**) .330(**) .129(**) 1 Conflict

Sexuality .282(**) .157(**) .335(**) .314(**) .374(**) .135(**) .224(**) 1

Victimization .232(**) .168(**) .264(**) .267(**) .315(**) .069 .303(**) .276(**) 1

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 21. Factor Scale Correlations, Boys – Sample 2

115

Degree of RMSEA – RMSEA – 90% ECVI Perfect Fit: Ho: Close Fit: Ho: Parameter point estimate confidence RMSEA = 0.00 RMSEA<=0.05 Specificity interval All parameters 0.054 (0.052; 0.056) 4.800 0.000 0.001 free to vary Item Loadings, 0.087 (0.085,0.089) 10.167 0.000 0.000 Factor Correlations Fixed Factor 0.058 (0.056; 0.060) 5.394 0.000 0.000 Correlations Fixed Item Loadings 0.091 (0.089; 0.093) 10.686 0.000 0.000 Fixed

Table 22. Results of CFA, Girls

Model χ2 df RMSEA 90% CI Test for Comparison χ2 df p for close fit change change change RMSEA (Ho: RMSEA < .05) 1. All 3263.725 1044 .054 .052- .001 parameters .056 free to vary 2. All 7376.460 1128 .087 .085-.089 .000 Model 1 vs. 2 4112.735 84 p<.001 parameters fully specified 3. Factor 6454.037 1091 .082 .080-.084 .000 Model 1 vs. 3 3190.312 47 p<.001 loadings specified 4. Factor 3772.937 1080 .058 .056-.060 .000 Model 1 vs. 4 509.212 36 p<.001 correlations specified RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error Approximation; CI = Confidence Interval

Table 23. Fit Indices for Testing Nested Models, Girls

116

Item or Correlation Discrepancy Between Free and Fixed Estimates

Difficulty Keeping a Job - Employment -0.347

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

Physically Aggressive - Aggression 0.197 Sexual Victim - Victimization 0.164 Manipulates Others– CU Traits 0.161 Panic Attacks - Internalizing Symptoms 0.158 Preoccupied with sex - Sexuality 0.156 Job Responsibility Difficulty - Employment 0.144 Difficulty Breathing - Internalizing Symptoms 0.143 Blames Others - CU Traits 0.137 No Responsibility for Actions – CU Traits 0.137 Poor Father Relationship – Parent-Child Conflict 0.132 Teacher Conflict – School Problems 0.127 Youth at Risk of Harm – Parent-Child Conflict -0.124

Table 24. Discrepancy between Free and Fixed Estimates- Girls

Degree of RMSEA – RMSEA – 90% ECVI Perfect Fit: Ho: Close Fit: Ho: Parameter point estimate confidence RMSEA = 0.00 RMSEA<=0.05 Specificity interval Parameters free 0.064 (0.062, 0.066) 6.323 0.00 0.00 to vary if discrepancy is ≥0.3 Parameters free 0.061 (0.059,0.063) 5.778 0.00 0.00 to vary if discrepancy is ≥0.2 Parameters free 0.059 (0.057,0.061) 5.521 0.00 0.00 to vary if discrepancy is ≥0.1

Table 25. Results of CFA When Model is Further Specified, Girls

117

Factor 1: School Problems

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .717 5

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted Lack Of Belonging To School 2.19 4.504 .364 .713 Academic Difficulty 1.91 3.851 .526 .649 Teacher Conflict 2.15 4.202 .511 .656 School Behavior Difficulty 2.00 3.645 .618 .605 Learning Problems 2.42 4.919 .373 .707

Factor 2: Sexuality

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .821 8

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted Sexually Active 2.65 8.296 .719 .772 Involved With Pregnancy 3.18 10.831 .326 .825 Engages In Unprotected Sex 2.96 9.076 .678 .781 Has Multiple Sex Partners 3.02 9.423 .633 .789 Prefers Older Friends 2.55 8.806 .534 .805 Older Dating 2.95 9.128 .582 .794 Dating Conflicts 3.04 10.116 .427 .815 Preoccupied With Sex 3.15 10.289 .441 .813

Continued

Table 26. Factor Reliabilities (Cronbach’s α), Girls

118

Table 26 continued

Factor 3: Employment

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .690 2

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted Difficulty Keeping Job .07 .087 .528 .(a) Job Responsibilities Difficulty .06 .074 .528 .(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: Callous-Unemotional Traits

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .843 5

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted No Guilt When Caught 2.44 5.292 .684 .801 Blames Others 2.65 5.663 .621 .818 Lies With Straight Face 2.35 5.134 .709 .794 Covers Up Wrong Doings 2.44 5.352 .699 .797 Manipulates Others 2.76 6.174 .534 .840

Continued

119

Table 26 continued

Factor 5: Parent-Child Conflict

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .776 7

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted Adult Youth Conflict 3.04 7.670 .616 .721 Youth Not Welcome Home 3.44 8.404 .524 .742 Youth At Risk At Home 3.79 10.137 .334 .777 Harsh Punishment 3.55 9.054 .451 .757 Uncontrollable After Punishment 3.33 8.171 .562 .734 Poor Mother Relationship 3.16 7.874 .581 .729 Poor Father Relationship 3.12 8.155 .443 .764

Factor 6: Victimization

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .748 4

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted Physical Victimization .76 1.501 .640 .631 Sexual Victimization .78 1.664 .586 .666 History Of Neglect .76 1.746 .452 .740 Victim Of A Crime .76 1.748 .500 .712

Continued

120

Table 26 continued Factor 7: Internalizing Symptoms

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .871 8

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted Nervous 3.13 11.593 .564 .862 Bad Dreams 3.13 11.254 .668 .850 Trouble Sleeping 3.05 10.914 .677 .849 Lost Interest In Past Enjoyments 3.02 10.998 .644 .853 Moody Depressed 2.77 10.664 .675 .850 Appetite Change 3.12 11.133 .642 .853 Panic Attacks 3.36 12.526 .544 .864 Difficulty Breathing 3.27 11.954 .620 .857

Factor 8: Narcissism Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .805 5

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted Inflated Sense Of Abilities 1.40 3.328 .628 .755 Excessive Self Worth 1.51 3.472 .682 .743 Charming But Insincere 1.33 3.485 .512 .793 Feels More Deserving 1.50 3.491 .651 .751 Exaggerates Abilities 1.35 3.426 .510 .795

Continued

121

Table 26 continued

Factor 9: Aggression

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .790 3

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted Tries To Get Even 1.03 1.553 .556 .798 Threatens To Harm 1.16 1.515 .702 .640 Physically Aggressive 1.09 1.550 .641 .703

122

Parent- CU School Internalizing Aggression Narcissism Employment Child Sexuality Victimization Traits Problems Symptoms Conflict CU Traits 1

School .568(**) 1 Problems

Aggression .526(**) .468(**) 1

Narcissism .550(**) .372(**) .571(**) 1

Internalizing .276(**) .393(**) .430(**) .341(**) 1 Symptoms

Employment .234(**) .220(**) .160(**) .176(**) .170(**) 1

Parent-Child .572(**) .473(**) .495(**) .434(**) .434(**) .122(**) 1 Conflict

Sexuality .445(**) .338(**) .432(**) .444(**) .463(**) .192(**) .474(**) 1

Victimization .285(**) .293(**) .383(**) .337(**) .459(**) .123(**) .370(**) .386(**) 1 1 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 27. Factor Scale Correlations, Girls

123