an examination of the factor structure of the psychopathy checklist

score. Although this is a valid measurement concern, the test-retest reliability of the
PCL:YV has been substantiated across independant raters (e.g., Skeem & Cauffman,
2003) and a complete review of not only the clinical assessments but of all other
documentation in the file was conducted to determine the PCL:YV scores.
Second, only aggressive acts that were officially charged were examined.
Although this ensured that there was file information available pertaining to the youth’s
charge, this did not allow for a comprehensive examination of the offender’s full extent
of their violent acts. If violent offenses that were undetected, or those that did not result
in charges being laid on the youth, could have been assessed, an even more accurate
representation of these females’ violence may have been possible. For instance,
violence directed at family members or close friends may have been more prevalent
considering that these victims may have not wanted to press charges against the youth.
Another shortcoming of the current study, as was alluded to earlier, involves the
nature of the sample. Specifically, the current female sample had a limited number of
purely instrumental offenses compared to other generally violent youth samples (i.e.,
Carpenter, 2010), as well as youth (e.g., Agar, 2009) and adult (e.g., Woodworth &
Porter, 2002) homicide samples. For instance, in Carpenter’s (2010) study, 31.8% of
offenses were purely instrumental, whereas in the current study only 17.2% of offenses
were purely instrumental. Although instrumental offences are significantly less common
than reactively violent offences among this particular sample, future research examining
psychopathy and instrumentality among a sample containing a larger proportion of
instrumental female offenders is warranted since a lack of power may have precluded
our ability to find a significant relationship between these two constructs.
76