psychopathy (see Skeem et al., 2011), this CU specifier underscores developmental questions about the extent to which psychopathy” is a valid construct. “juvenile Limitations First, as is the case with any longitudinal study of high-risk samples, we were unable to retain all participants over time. To reduce the likelihood that our findings reflected differential attrition, we included analyses (e.g., growth curve analysis; cross- lagged SEM) that use techniques to handle missing data (e.g., FIML). Moreover, for several analyses (e.g., bivariate correlations; ICCs), we applied multiple imputation as an alternate strategy for handling missing data. The pattern of findings was consistent across strategies, which lends confidence to our main conclusions. Second, relative to our adolescent sample (n = 202), the sample (n = 134) was small. The adult sample provided adequate power to examine stability in PCL:R scores over time, but not to detect significant relationships in the cross-lagged model of maturity and PCL:R scores. Finally, adolescents’ baseline PCL:YV scores were higher on average (estimated intercept = 28) than those of adults (estimated intercept = 25). Although the difference is modest (3 points on a 40-point scale), it raises the possibility that regression to the mean may explain some of the greater decrease in adolescents’ than adults’ scores. Finally, the Affective factor dis played low reliability (ICC = .47), which may have contributed to the weak stability displayed by this factor. Confidence in our results may also be provided through com- parison with past longitudinal studies with different designs. Broadly, compared with estimates produced for adults in past research (ICCs = .40-.60, Blonigen et al., 2006; Loney et al., 2007; Rutherford et al., 1999) our stability estimates for adults (ICC = .70) and adolescents (ICC = .32) lie at the upper and lower ends of the distribution, respectively. Our results for adolescents (r = .33) were
psychopathy (see Skeem et al., 2011), this CU specifier underscores developmental questions about the extent to which “juvenile psychopathy” is a valid construct. Limitations First, as is the case with any longitudinal study of high-risk samples, we were unable to retain all participants over time. To reduce the likelihood that our findings reflected differential attrition, we included analyses (e.g., growth curve analysis; cross- lagged SEM) that use techniques to handle missing data (e.g., FIML). Moreover, for several analyses (e.g., bivariate correlations; ICCs), we applied multiple imputation as an alternate strategy for handling missing data. The pattern of findings was consistent across strategies, which lends confidence to our main conclusions. Second, relative to our adolescent sample (n = 202), the sample (n = 134) was small. The adult sample provided adequate power to examine stability in PCL:R scores over time, but not to detect significant relationships in the cross-lagged model of maturity and PCL:R scores. Finally, adolescents’ baseline PCL:YV scores were higher on average (estimated intercept = 28) than those of adults (estimated intercept = 25). Although the difference is modest (3 points on a 40-point scale), it raises the possibility that regression to the mean may explain some of the greater decrease in adolescents’ than adults’ scores. Finally, the Affective factor dis played low reliability (ICC = .47), which may have contributed to the weak stability displayed by this factor. Confidence in our results may also be provided through com- parison with past longitudinal studies with different designs. Broadly, compared with estimates produced for adults in past research (ICCs = .40-.60, Blonigen et al., 2006; Loney et al., 2007; Rutherford et al., 1999) our stability estimates for adults (ICC = .70) and adolescents (ICC = .32) lie at the upper and lower ends of the distribution, respectively. Our results for adolescents (r = .33) were
comparing_the_stability_of_psychopathy_scores_in_adolescents_versus_adults-_how_often_is_fledgling_psychopathy_misdiagnosed_manuscript.docx