an examination of the factor structure of the psychopathy checklist

particularly females. Results from studies with adult female offenders (Bolt et al., 2004;
Nicholls, Ogloff, & Douglas, 2004; Salekin, Rogers, & Sewell, 1997; Vitale, Brinkley,
Hiatt, & Newman, 2007; Vitale, MacCoon, & Newman, 2011; Warren et al., 2005;
Weizmann-Henelius et al., 2010) and adolescent female offenders (Schrum & Salekin,
2006) have shown that the construct of psychopathy is also applicable to these
populations. Nonetheless, results from the two studies described above that have
included female youth have raised some doubts about the applicability of the three
primary factor models to this population in particular, and demonstrate the need to
further evaluate the structure of the PCL:YV in adolescent females. Indeed, before the
PCL:YV can be used effectively with female youth, researchers and clinicians arguably
must be more confident about the most appropriate factor structure of this measure.
The PCL:YV factor structure that is most appropriate for use with youth samples
may differ across gender for two main reasons. The first being that psychopathy may be
expressed differently in females than it is in males; the underlying personality features
may be the same but their overt behavioural manifestation may be different. Indeed,
gender-role socialization and biological sex differences might result in the underlying
traits of psychopathy to be displayed differently in males and females (Cale & Lilienfeld,
2002; Hamburger, Lilienfeld, & Hogben, 1996; see Nicholls & Petrila, 2005). Since
females tend to have less upper body strength than males, females may use
manipulation, flirtation, or coercion to achieve their goals more so than males (Nicholls
& Petrila, 2005). Indeed, they may display less overt forms of antisocial behaviour which
is consistent with other investigations (e.g., Odgers & Moretti, 2002). The second
reason for potential differences in the factor structure of the PCL:YV across gender has
13