an examination of the factor structure of the psychopathy checklist

More documents

Recommendations

Info

When a weapon was involved, an object (e.g., bottle of alcohol) was the most common (48.9%) followed by a knife (38.3%); a chemical spray was the least common (4.3%), and the type of weapon was unknown in 8.5% of cases. Weapons were obtained opportunistically in 42.6% of offenses involving a weapon, and were obtained by choice, prior to the offense in 38.3% of offenses. It was unclear how the weapon was obtained in 19.1% of offenses that involved a weapon. Regarding violence severity, over half of the offenses (55.4%) involved physical violence with no weapon use, 26.9% involved physical violence with weapon use, and 13.1% involved no physical violence and no weapon use. Injuries were most often minor (57.7%; e.g., bruises, minor medical treatment), 2.3% of victims were severely injured (e.g., lasting impairment or life-threatening injury), 7.7% of victims were seriously injured (e.g., required substantial hospital treatment), 12.3% were assaulted without injury, and in 13.8% of offenses, no assault occurred (e.g., victim was threatened with a weapon). In one offense (1.0%), the injuries suffered by the victim resulted in his/her death. For a graphical display of violence severity based on victim injury, refer to Figure 2. 39
Figure 2. Percentage of cases by severity of violence based on victim injury. The offenses occurred most often in public places (53.8%), followed by the youth’s home (18.5%), another residence (12.3%), and least often at school or work (8.5%). A small proportion of offenses (1.5%) occurred in mixed (i.e., multiple) locations. In half of the offenses (50.8%), there was no alcohol or drug involvement on the part of the offender. The percent of offenders who were severely intoxicated (e.g., very impaired) at the time of the offense was 6.9%, 14.6% were intoxicated, 6.2% were mildly intoxicated and 3.1% were not intoxicated. The use of drugs or alcohol could not be determined in 18.5% of cases. 40
Page 1 and 2: AN EXAMINATION OF THE FACTOR STRUCT
Page 3 and 4: Preface Ethics approval for this re
Page 5 and 6: 3 Results .........................
Page 7 and 8: List of Tables Table 1 Confirmatory
Page 9 and 10: Acknowledgements I owe my deepest g
Page 11 and 12: To my family and friends, Thank you
Page 13 and 14: among female youth populations, the
Page 15 and 16: Third, it has been suggested that t
Page 17 and 18: only a small proportion of conduct-
Page 19 and 20: irresponsible, and antisocial tende
Page 21 and 22: A long line of research has demonst
Page 23 and 24: females. When a model is considered
Page 25 and 26: to do with whether the measure is w
Page 27 and 28: Understanding the factor structure
Page 29 and 30: (Leschied et al., 2001; Moretti, Ca
Page 31 and 32: psychopathic offenders were signifi
Page 33 and 34: instrumental aggression. However, w
Page 35 and 36: Given the relationships between the
Page 37 and 38: associated with self-report will be
Page 39 and 40: 1.4.1 Hypotheses The current thesis
Page 41 and 42: ecords, school records, medical rec
Page 43 and 44: 2.2.3 Instrumental-Reactive Coding
Page 45 and 46: eceiving services from YFPS. Althou
Page 47 and 48: 3 Results 3.1 Coding Reliability In
Page 49: This was followed by acquaintance v
Page 53 and 54: index that adjusts for model comple
Page 55 and 56: Item 1 Item 2 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6
Page 57 and 58: (1-19), 38.7% scored in the moderat
Page 59 and 60: offences, 28.6% were for revenge or
Page 61 and 62: association between the dichotomous
Page 63 and 64: from the original dataset. In other
Page 65 and 66: in instrumental aggression was acco
Page 67 and 68: etween the dichotomous psychopathy
Page 69 and 70: psychopath based on a cut score of
Page 71 and 72: the three-factor model was unable t
Page 73 and 74: sample since violent offenders are
Page 75 and 76: who also concluded that antisocial
Page 77 and 78: they are less likely to use reactiv
Page 79 and 80: more strongly related to instrument
Page 81 and 82: Pickard, 2007; Barry, Pickard, & An
Page 83 and 84: measure of psychopathy may be limit
Page 85 and 86: Further, based on the relatively lo
Page 87 and 88: score. Although this is a valid mea
Page 89 and 90: Having access to a large sample, we
Page 91 and 92: demonstrated, the utility of differ
Page 93 and 94: malleable youth sample may facilita
Page 95 and 96: Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: I
Page 97 and 98: Gender differences in mental health
Page 99 and 100: Edens, J. F., Skeem, J. L., Cruise,
Page 101 and 102:
Frick, P. J., Cornell, A. H., Barry
Page 103 and 104:
Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2006
Page 105 and 106:
Jones, S., Cauffman, E., Miller, J.
Page 107 and 108:
Lynam, D. R. (1996). Early identifi
Page 109 and 110:
Murrie, D. C., Cornell, D. G., Kapl
Page 111 and 112:
of the official and self-reported h
Page 113 and 114:
Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., & Sewel
Page 115 and 116:
Stockdale, K. C., Olver, M. E., Won
Page 117 and 118:
Vitale, J. E., & Newman, J. P. (200
Page 119 and 120:
Xie, H., Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B
Page 121 and 122:
Appendix B: Factor Models Table A1
Page 123 and 124:
112
Page 125 and 126:
Appendix E: Coding Scheme and Guide
Page 127 and 128:
PART A: OFFENCE CHARACTERISTICS AND
Page 129 and 130:
PART C: WOODWORTH & PORTER`S INSTRU
show all

an examination of the factor structure of the psychopathy checklist

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?