To complement our ROC analyses, we computed traditional decision statistics for PCL classifications at baseline and year 2 (see Table 3). Sensitivity (likelihood of “psychopathic” diagnosis at baseline, given a diagnosis at year 2) and negative predictive power “psychopathic” (likelihood of not being considered at year 2, given no diagnosis “psychopathic” “psychopathic” at base- line) were moderate-to-high for both youths and adults. On the other hand, specificity (likelihood of not being considered at baseline, given no “psychopathic” “psychopathic” diagnosis at year 2) and positive predictive power (likelihood of diagnosis at year “psychopathic” 2, given a diagnosis at baseline), were somewhat higher for adults than “psychopathic” adolescents. For example, 53% of adults classified as at baseline were also “psychopathic” classified as at year 2, compared with only 37% of adolescents. “psychopathic” We also examined changes in PCL scores by age using latent growth curve modeling (Bollen & Curran, 2006). We modeled developmental changes between the ages of 14 and 19 for adolescents and the ages of 26 and 31 for adults. The model estimated change for both youths and adults together, using a multigroup framework. Observations for the two groups were stacked, such that the intercept represented age-14 observations for adolescents and age-26 observations for adults; slope coefficient represented linear change for each year. The multigroup model had a good fit (see Table 4). On average, adolescents had a PCL:YV score of 27.76 at the age of 14 and evinced a statistically significant decline of 0.66 points per year (p < .001). Adults, on average, had a PCL:R score of 24.61 at the age of 26 and exhibited a nonstatistically significant decline of 0.13 points per year (p = .50). There was a significant difference between adults’ and adolescents’ intercepts, that is, starting points, = χ2(1) 12.15, < .001, but not between their slopes, that is, subsequent change in scores, = 3.66, p p χ2(1) = .06. At the scale level, there were group differences in the trajectories of the Affective and
To complement our ROC analyses, we computed traditional decision statistics for PCL classifications at baseline and year 2 (see Table 3). Sensitivity (likelihood of “psychopathic” diagnosis at baseline, given a “psychopathic” diagnosis at year 2) and negative predictive power (likelihood of not being considered “psychopathic” at year 2, given no “psychopathic” diagnosis at base- line) were moderate-to-high for both youths and adults. On the other hand, specificity (likelihood of not being considered “psychopathic” at baseline, given no “psychopathic” diagnosis at year 2) and positive predictive power (likelihood of “psychopathic” diagnosis at year 2, given a “psychopathic” diagnosis at baseline), were somewhat higher for adults than adolescents. For example, 53% of adults classified as “psychopathic” at baseline were also classified as “psychopathic” at year 2, compared with only 37% of adolescents. We also examined changes in PCL scores by age using latent growth curve modeling (Bollen & Curran, 2006). We modeled developmental changes between the ages of 14 and 19 for adolescents and the ages of 26 and 31 for adults. The model estimated change for both youths and adults together, using a multigroup framework. Observations for the two groups were stacked, such that the intercept represented age-14 observations for adolescents and age-26 observations for adults; slope coefficient represented linear change for each year. The multigroup model had a good fit (see Table 4). On average, adolescents had a PCL:YV score of 27.76 at the age of 14 and evinced a statistically significant decline of 0.66 points per year (p < .001). Adults, on average, had a PCL:R score of 24.61 at the age of 26 and exhibited a nonstatistically significant decline of 0.13 points per year (p = .50). There was a significant difference between adults’ and adolescents’ intercepts, that is, starting points, χ2(1) = 12.15, p < .001, but not between their slopes, that is, subsequent change in scores, χ2(1) = 3.66, p = .06. At the scale level, there were group differences in the trajectories of the Affective and