The cross-cultural generalizability of the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth version for adjudicated indigenous youth.

There is a paucity of Indigenous-specific research examining the reliability and validity of assessment tools routinely utilized within the justice system. Evaluating the cross-cultural reliability and validity of such tools is important for establishing generalizability as part of ethical practices; this is particularly important to address within Canada's Indigenous youth population because of longstanding effects of colonization, structural adversities, and overrepresentation in the youth justice system and the possible long-term impact of improper assessment on adult outcomes. A step toward this aim was undertaken in the current study by comparing scale reliability, structural validity, measurement invariance, and predictive validity of the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV) across Indigenous (n = 137) and White (n = 312) adjudicated youth. Polychoric ordinal alpha values indicated that PCL:YV test score scale reliability was high for both Indigenous and White youth. Confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated that a 3-factor and 4-factor model provided acceptable-to-good fit for the full sample, and an examination of configural, metric, and scalar measurement invariance illustrated that both factor structures fit the subsamples equally well. PCL:YV test scores were also moderately associated with measures of different offending outcomes and performed similarly across White and Indigenous participants. Overall, support was found for the use of the PCL:YV within Indigenous youth, including its use in conjunction with other risk factors and assessment tools to guide risk assessment decisions for this group. The importance of cross-cultural research and directions for future research are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Abuse Experiences of Family Members, Child Maltreatment, and the Development of Sex Offending Among Incarcerated Adolescent Males.

Child sexual abuse is considered a risk factor for the development of sexual offending in adolescence. Beyond this, comparisons of the risk factor profiles between adolescent sex offenders (ASOs) and adolescent non-sex offenders (ANSOs) have uncovered minimal differences. However, differences between ASOs and ANSOs in terms of patterns in the abuse histories of their family members have rarely been studied. The aim in the current study was to retrospectively examine histories of abuse among family members of ASOs compared with ANSOs to determine whether and how these were related to youth abuse experiences and sexual offending in adolescence. The current study is based on a sample of 482 incarcerated male adolescents (ASOs = 67, ANSOs = 415). Latent class analysis was conducted to determine multidimensional familial abuse profiles, and a series of logistic regression models were used to examine the relationship between family abuse profiles, youth abuse experiences, and adolescent sexual offending. Overall, familial abuse profiles were related to subsequent youth abuse experiences and sexual offending, and these abuse profiles differentiated ASOs and ANSOs.

Examining Antisocial Behavioral Antecedents of Juvenile Sexual Offenders and Juvenile Non-Sexual Offenders.

In prospective longitudinal studies of juvenile offenders, the presence of multiple developmental pathways of antisocial behaviors has consistently been identified. An "antisocial" type of juvenile sex offender (JSO) has also been identified; however, whether antisocial JSOs follow different antisocial pathways has not been examined. In the current study, differences in antisocial pathways within JSOs and between JSOs and juvenile non-sex offenders (JNSOs) were examined. Data on Canadian male incarcerated adolescent offenders were used to identify whether behavioral antecedents differed within JSOs and between JSOs (n = 51) and JNSOs (n = 94). Using latent class analysis (LCA), three behavioral groups were identified. For both JSOs and JNSOs, there was a Low Antisocial, Overt, and Covert group. Overall, there were important within-group differences in the behavioral patterns of JSOs, but these differences resembled differences in the behavioral patterns of their JNSO counterpart. Risk factors including offense history, abuse history, and family history were more strongly associated with the Overt and Covert groups compared with the Low Antisocial group. Implications for JSO assessment practices were discussed.