an examination of the factor structure of the psychopathy checklist

the three-factor and four-facet latent variable models of adolescent psychopathy
whereas the two-factor model demonstrated unsatisfactory model fit. They concluded
that although the three-factor and four-facet models were similar in terms of goodness-
of-fit, the four-facet model was preferred since it accounted for more variance in the
construct of instrumental aggression (i.e., the four-facet model was better able to predict
the use of instrumental aggression). Another study, which was conducted by Sevecke et
al. (2009), tested the two-factor, three-factor, and four-facet models among two
German, male adolescent samples: one incarcerated offender sample and one
community student sample. Their results showed that the three-factor model provided
better fit than the other two competing factor models for both the community and
incarcerated samples. The fit of the two-factor model was mixed, with some indices
suggesting adequate fit and others suggesting inadequate fit, and the fit of the four-facet
model was problematic in both samples. These two studies suggest that the three-factor
model appears promising among both incarcerated and community offender samples,
however, Vitacco and colleagues demonstrated that when comparing the utility of these
two models in the prediction of aggressive behaviour, the four-facet model is preferred.
Since the PCL:YV’s development, there have only been two empirical studies to
test the factor structure of the PCL:YV with samples that have included female
adolescents. The first was an American study conducted by Jones et al. (2006). Their
analysis showed that modified versions of the Cooke and Michie (2001) three-factor
model and the Hare (2003) four-facet model each demonstrated moderate fit. However,
the initial models did not fit the data well meaning that the original three-factor and four-
facet models had to be modified to provide better fit with their sample of adolescent
11