Search

The current study compared the validity of self-, parent-, and teacher-report versions of the Inventory of Callous–Unemotional Traits (ICU), a widely used measure of callous–unemotional (CU) traits, at several different ages. Participants ( N = 236, 60.6% girls) were children in Grades 3, 6, and 8 ( Mage = 11.55, SD = 2.23) from a public school system in the southern United States. We tested the association of all three ICU versions with several validators: parent- and teacher-reported conduct problems, peer nominations of characteristics associated with CU traits, and sociometric peer nominations of social preference. Results revealed an interaction between the ICU version and grade in the overall level of CU traits reported, with teacher-report leading to the highest ratings in sixth grade and being higher than parent-report in third grade. Furthermore, the validity of the different versions of the ICU varied somewhat across grades. Specifically, findings support the validity of both teacher- and self-report in third grade, but self-report was the only version to show strong validity in the eighth grade.

Callous-unemotional (CU) traits have recently been added to the diagnostic criteria of Conduct Disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fifth edition and of conduct–dissocial and oppositional defiant disorders in the International Classification of Disease–Eleventh edition as the limited prosocial emotions specifier. This change necessitates the assessment of these traits with validated measures in both research and clinical contexts. The current study sought to validate a semi-structured diagnostic interview method, the Michigan Limited Prosocial Emotion Addendum (M-LPE) to the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children–Present and Lifetime Version, of assessing CU traits based on a recently developed clinician rating system (Clinical Assessment of Prosocial Emotions, Version 1.1) in a sample of at-risk youth. Results supported the interrater reliability of the M-LPE with moderate agreement and high reliability between raters. The M-LPE demonstrated convergent and incremental validity with CU traits and various measures of antisocial behavior. The results provide preliminary evidence for the use of a semi-structured interview assessment of CU traits in research contexts and build the foundation for further validation.

The current study tested whether a self-report measure of aggression (i.e., the Peer Conflict Scale; PCS) would predict later delinquency, after controlling for other risk factors, and tested whether the different forms and functions of aggression contributed independently to this prediction. Self-report of aggression was assessed at the time of first arrest, and both self-report of delinquency and official arrests were assessed at 5 different time points over a 30-month follow-up period in a sample of male adolescent offenders (N = 1,216; Mage = 15.12, SD = 1.29 years) arrested in 3 regions (i.e., western, southern, northeast) of the United States. Aggression predicted both later total and later violent self-reported delinquency (odds ratio [OR] = 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI: 1.01, 1.02]), even after controlling for youths' self-reported lifetime history of delinquent acts and callous-unemotional (CU) traits (i.e., Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits) collected at initial arrest. Further, only self-reported aggression (but not lifetime delinquency and CU traits) contributed independently (OR = 1.02, 95% CI [1.00, 1.03]) to the prediction of arrests for violent offenses. Finally, the predictive utility of aggression was largely accounted for by physical and reactive aggression, with limited incremental prediction provided by relational and proactive aggression. These findings support the potential utility of self-reports of aggression, such as the PCS, when assessing risk for future violence. Findings also suggest that the utility of these self-reports of aggression cannot be solely accounted for by other risk factors often included in typical risk assessment tools. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective The current study investigated the social and interpersonal correlates of callous-unemotional (CU) traits using peer nominations. Method Participants (N = 289) were children in Grades 3, 6, and 8 (Mage = 11.47 years, 40.1% male, 64.7% self-identified racial/ethnic minority) from two public school systems in the southern United States. Participants were asked to identify peers they believed fit a number of different characteristics hypothesized to be related to CU traits, in addition to individuals they “liked most” and “liked least.” We also obtained self- and teacher ratings of CU traits and parent and teacher ratings of conduct problems (CP). Results Factor analyses extracted three dimensions from peer nominations developed from past research describing social characteristics related to CU traits—being mean and aloof (Mean/Cold), untrustworthy and not nice (Not Nice), and dominant and manipulative (Desire for Dominance). Results indicated that CU traits were significantly associated with fewer “liked most” and greater “liked least” nominations, but not after controlling for CP. In contrast, both CP and CU traits were significantly independently associated with Mean/Cold nominations, and only CU traits were associated with Not Nice nominations when controlling for CP. Conclusions The findings from the current study suggest that CU traits are largely associated with traditional indices of peer rejection because of their level of CP. However, they contribute independently to perceptions of being mean, aloof, and untrustworthy. Thus, interventions focused on strengthening the social skills of children with elevated CU traits should consider ways to change these negative peer perceptions.

Objective: The recent addition of the callous-unemotional (CU) traits specifier, “with Limited Prosocial Emotions (LPE),” to major classification systems has prompted the need for assessment tools that aid in the identification of elevations on these traits for diagnostic purposes. The goal of the current study was to use and evaluate multiple methods for establishing cutoff scores for the multi-informant questionnaire, the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (ICU). Method: The present study compared the clinical utility of various proposed cutoff methods and scores (i.e., empirically derived cutoffs using receiver operating characteristic (ROC), normative cutoffs, and rational scoring approximations of LPE criteria) in both a longitudinal sample of justice-involved male adolescents (N = 1,216; Mage = 15.29, SD = 1.29) and a cross-sectional sample of school children (N = 289; Mage = 11.47 years; SD = 2.26). Results: Methods resulted in a range of cutoff scores with substantial diagnostic overlap and validity. Specifically, they designated justice-involved adolescents at risk for later delinquency, aggression, and rearrests, and they designated school children more likely to be rated by parents and teacher as having conduct problems and rated by peers as being rejected and mean. Conclusions: The results lead to ranges of ICU scores that have support for their validity and can help to guide clinical decisions about children and adolescents who may be elevated on CU traits.

Cognitive impairment among seriously mentally ill offenders has implications for legal matters (e.g., competency to stand trial), as well as clinical treatment and care. Thus, being able to identify potential cognitive concerns early in the adjudication process can be important when deciding on further interventions. In this study, we examined the validity scales of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), scores on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV (WAIS-IV), and competency findings in male inmates (n=61) diagnosed with a serious mental illness. Lower scores on the WAIS-IV significantly (p=0.001) predicted invalid, versus valid, PAI profiles, with working memory impairment being the most significant (p=0.004) predictor of an invalid profile. Ancillary analyses on a smaller sample (n=18) indicate that those with invalid PAI profiles were more likely to be deemed legally incompetent (p=0.03). These findings suggest that the PAI validity scales may be informative in detecting cognitive concerns and help clinicians make determinations about competency restoration and treatment.

This chapter provides a definition of disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorders and provides an overview of some key issues in the classification of these disorders in children and adolescents. This chapter then provides an overview of the history of how these disorders have been classified in the most recent editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). This summary is followed by a discussion of key issues involved in the classification of each disorders currently included in this category, with a particular focus on Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Conduct Disorder. Finally, the chapter concludes with a comparison of the approach taken by the DSM with the approach taken by the International Classification of Diseases that is published by the WHO.