Clinical Assessment of Child and Adolescent Personality and Behavior

Marcus

Journal of Psychiatric Research

et al. 2013

Self Cite

An understanding of the latent structure of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is essential for better developing causal models, improving diagnostic and assessment procedures, and enhancing treatments for the disorder. Although much research has focused on ODD—including recent studies informing the diagnostic criteria for DSM-5—research examining the latent structure of ODD is sparse, and no known study has specifically undertaken a taxometric analysis to address the issue of whether ODD is a categorical or dimensional construct. To address this gap, the authors conducted two separate studies using a set of taxometric analyses with data from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (child study; N = 969) and with data from a large mixed sample of adults, which included participants reporting psychiatric difficulties as well as healthy controls (adult study; N = 600). The results of a variety of non-redundant analyses across both studies revealed a dimensional latent structure for ODD symptoms among both children and adults. These findings are consistent with previous studies that have examined latent structure of related constructs (e.g., aggression, antisocial behavior) as well as studies that have examined the dimensional versus categorical structure of ODD using methods other than taxometric analysis.

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 76%

The latent structure of oppositional defiant disorder in children and adults

Marcus

Journal of Psychiatric Research

et al. 2013

Self Cite

Psychological Assessment

“…These informants were chosen to utilize the best informants for the different constructs assessed in order to form groups. Specifically, assessment of antisocial attitudes in general, and CU traits specifically, typically are best assessed by multiple informants, since parents may not be aware of some attitudes and feelings and self-report can be subject to social desirability in reporting (Frick, Barry, & Kamphaus, 2010). In contrast, internalizing symptoms are characterized by internal emotional states that may not be apparent to parents and are typically best assessed by self-report after early childhood (Frick et al, 2010).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinguishing primary and secondary variants of callous-unemotional traits among adolescents in a clinic-referred sample.

Kahn¹,

Frick²,

Youngstrom³

et al. 2013

Self Cite

126

105

The current study used model-based cluster analyses to determine if there are two distinct variants of adolescents (ages 11 - 18) high on callous-unemotional (CU) traits that differ on their level of anxiety and history of trauma. The sample (n = 272) consisted of clinic-referred youths who were primarily African-American (90%) and from low income families. Consistent with hypotheses, three clusters emerged, including a group low on CU traits, as well as two groups high on CU traits that differed in their level of anxiety and past trauma. Consistent with past research on incarcerated adults and adolescents, the group high on anxiety (i.e., secondary variant) was more likely to have histories of abuse and had higher levels of impulsivity, externalizing behaviors, aggression, and behavioral activation. In contrast, the group low on anxiety (i.e., primary variant) scored lower on a measure of behavioral inhibition. On measures of impulsivity and externalizing behavior, the higher scores for the secondary cluster only were found for self-report measures, not on parent-report measures. Youths in the primary cluster also were perceived as less credible reporters than youth in the secondary or cluster low on CU traits. These reporter and credibility differences suggest that adolescents within the primary variant may underreport their level of behavioral disturbance, which has important assessment implications.

“…as the students advance in school (Frick, Barry, & Kamphaus, 2010). Even though the predictive power of psychopathic traits for future behavioral disorders has been supported by a number of studies (e.g., Marsee & Frick, 2010;McMahon et al, 2010;Rowe et al, 2010), there is a need of longitudinal researches that examine the relationship between specific developmental trajectories and future behavioral outcomes (Fontaine et al, 2011;Lynam et al, 2009;Pardini & Loeber, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Assessing the Stability of Psychopathic Traits: Adolescent Outcomes in a Six-Year Follow-Up

2014

Previous research has shown the relevance of psychopathic traits as predictors of severe and persistent antisocial behavior. Given that personality traits refer to developmental constructs, the main purposes of this study were to analyze the stability of psychopathic traits from childhood to adolescence, and to examine differential outcomes derived from distinctive pathways of stability and change. Data was collected in a Spanish sample of 138 children aged 6-11 at the onset of the study (T1), and 12-17 in the subsequent follow-up conducted 6 years later (T2). The stability of psychopathic traits was assessed in terms of differential continuity (rank-order), absolute stability (mean-level) and individual-level change (Reliable Change Index). Results confirmed that psychopathic traits remained moderately to highly stable from childhood to adolescence (p < .001). There were, however, some differences depending on the informant (parents vs. teachers) and the particular assessment method used (rank order vs. mean-level and RCI). A stable high and an increasing developmental pattern of psychopathic traits were related with severe adolescent behavioral and psychosocial problems (ŋ² = .10-.36). These results support the usefulness of youth psychopathic personality as a developmental construct, and highlight its relevance as a predictor of long-lasting maladjustment, with relevant implications in terms of prevention and treatment.