Making a CASE for Revisiting Psychopathy and Intelligence in Youth Justice Populations: Implications for RNR and Links to Community Recidivism

Abstract

The present study examined the interrelations of psychopathy cognitive ability, achievement, and school engagement variables to recidivism in a diverse sample of 417 justice-involved youth court referred for assessment and/or treatment services. The Psychopathy Checklist Youth: Version (PCL: YV) and a set of criminogenic, education, and developmental variables were rated from file; recidivism data were obtained from criminal records. PCL: YV total and most facet scores were inversely related to verbal IQ, unrelated to academic achievement, and strongly associated with school disengagement; however, interpersonal facet scores showed the opposite pattern among male youth. Cox regression survival analyses demonstrated that composite variables reflecting global achievement and school engagement concerns incrementally predicted recidivism outcomes controlling for PCL: YV scores; higher achievement and school engagement appeared to mitigate risk. By contrast, while global cognitive ability similarly mitigated risk among male youth, it was associated with increased recidivism among female youth after controlling for baseline psychopathy. The results underscore the risk, need, and responsivity (RNR) relevance of cognitive ability, achievement, and school engagement in reducing risk for future crime and violence.

Keywords

psychopathy intelligence achievement education recidivism

Intellectual and educational deficits are endemic to correctional and criminal justice populations across the lifespan. Among justice-involved youth in particular, there is a heighted prevalence of cognitive, academic, and neurodevelopmental problems compared to non-justice involved youth (Lansing et al., 2014; Mathews et al., 2025; Nkoana et al., 2020). Specifically, such youth are more likely to struggle with school conduct problems and academic achievement, including a higher incidence of poor grades, literacy deficits, and falling behind in educational milestones (Bryan et al., 2007; Snowling et al., 2000). Justice-involved youth also have higher base rates of intellectual impairment, learning disabilities, and neurodevelopmental conditions associated with school underperformance that could create risks for entering the justice system (Grigorenko, 2006; Nkoana et al., 2020). Cognitively, youth justice populations frequently demonstrate weaknesses in executive functioning (e.g., planning, judgment, behavioral inhibition) and verbal problem-solving skills (often associated with educational achievement and crystallized intelligence), which also tend to be underdeveloped relative to nonverbal (e.g., spatial, mechanical) reasoning (Lansing et al., 2014; Moffitt & Caspi, 2001), also known as the verbal-performance (nonverbal) split observed on standardized intelligence or IQ tests.

For instance, in a large-scale US study of cognitive functioning in a sample of 1,829 juvenile detainees, Lansing et al. (2014) found: (1) male and female youth, on average, scored more than a standard deviation below the mean (IQ <85) on global cognitive ability (IQ), verbal, and spatial reasoning on a brief measure of intelligence, deficits that extended to reading and math achievement; (2) nearly one third of the sample, observed across sexes, had significant verbal-nonverbal splits by about 0.50 SD; and (3) more than three quarters of male youth (77.9%) and two thirds of female youth (67.7%) scored below average or lower (e.g., impaired) on global cognitive ability, with greater rates of impairment observed in verbal vs nonverbal ability.

The Risk-Need-Responsivity Relevance of Cognitive Ability and Achievement

Although cognitive ability and academic achievement are not one and the same, the two are strongly interlinked, and each are strongly associated with school engagement (i.e., conduct and performance), which in turn has links with crime and violence (Cottle et al., 2001; Fine et al., 2018). Lankester et al.’s (2025) recent meta-analysis (k = 8) found a robust small to medium effect (r = .20) for low academic achievement with increased juvenile offending. Further, in a large-scale US longitudinal study of 1,216 male first time justice involved youth, a series of school variables had significant small bivariate associations with increased rates of arrest within 6 months, including school misconduct, skipping class, poor school grades, and negative attitudes toward school; these associations were even stronger when associated with self-reported offending, including violence (Fine et al., 2018). Evidence from meta-analysis also demonstrates low psychometric intelligence to be associated with increased recidivism in juvenile (Cottle et al., 2001), and adult correctional mental health (Bonta et al., 2014) samples.

The implications for assessment and intervention to manage risk and to prevent future crime and violence, vis-à-vis the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Bonta & Andrews, 2024) are considerable. Education/employment is one of the Central Eight covariates of criminal conduct within the RNR framework in youth and adult justice populations associated with the onset and maintenance of antisocial behavior. A large-scale meta-analysis of the Level of Service Inventory (LSI) measures, that extended to the Central Eight domains, found that education/employment concerns were among the strongest predictors of general (r = .24, k = 55, n = 97,509) and violent (r = .20, k = 19, n = 55,417) recidivism, an effect that was invariant across sex and ethnoracial heritage (Olver et al., 2014). Among youth, school naturally features more prominently, and with older youth who reach working age, the employment dimension has added relevance. School and work interventions also abound for justice and at-risk populations, with meta-analytic findings demonstrating that school upgrading, post-secondary education, and vocational retraining initiatives to be associated with decreased recidivism in youth and adult samples (Bozick et al., 2018; Chappell, 2003; King, 2018; Steele et al., 2016; Wilson & Lipsey, 2007). Situated within the RNR model, youth with educational deficits present as increased risk and have higher rates of recidivism (risk principle). When these areas of need exist, they require prioritization for school and work-related interventions to promote skill development and prosocial functioning (e.g., maintaining a school placement, obtaining and maintaining a job) to decrease recidivism (need principle). Service delivery also needs to be tailored to individual learning styles, cognitive ability, and literacy level to promote client engagement and achieve essential gains (e.g., modified school placements with low staff to student ratio, featuring development of practical skills in addition to academics) (responsivity principle); that is, cognitive ability (e.g., IQ) and its related capacities, would constitute a set of responsivity issues.

Cognitive Ability and Achievement: Their Intersection With Psychopathy and Risk

Juvenile psychopathy is a psychopathological construct with substantial criminal justice system relevance, as well as an often-problematic intersection with learning environments including lower levels of school performance and higher rates of misconduct (DeLisi et al., 2011). Characterized by a series of developmentally aberrant and problematic interpersonal (e.g., impression management, deceitfulness), affective (e.g., callous, remorseless), lifestyle (e.g., impulsive, irresponsible), and antisocial (e.g., serious criminal behavior, poor anger controls) features, high scores on the most frequently used third party assessment measure of juvenile psychopathy—the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (Forth et al., 2003)—have also demonstrated strong associations with future crime and violence (Olver et al., 2009). A common misconception from film and media portrayals of psychopathy is for the syndrome to be associated with high intelligence; however, the results of meta-analysis suggest the opposite or at least a more complicated picture. In their meta-analysis of 106 psychopathy-IQ studies, Sánchez de Ribera et al. (2019) found a small inverse association between psychopathy total score and global cognitive ability (r = −.07, FSIQ), as well as verbal and nonverbal reasoning ability (r = −.12 and −.05, respectively). When examined in a subset of studies at the facet level, however, scores on the interpersonal domain were significantly positively associated with increased global cognitive ability (r = .14, k = 11), while the affective, lifestyle, and antisocial features were each significantly associated with lower levels of ability across one or more IQ domains (r = −.05 to −.20); a set of findings that extended to other measures of psychopathy (e.g., Psychopathic Personality Inventory). Sánchez de Ribera et al. (2019) interpreted this to be not that the interpersonal features are associated with superior intelligence, but rather, that such traits are not associated with cognitive deficits. Furthermore, although youth samples were included in this meta-analysis, age was not examined as a potential moderator.

How do these domains have criminolegal (and hence, RNR) relevance within the context of psychopathy? Does psychopathy elevate risk among persons with lower cognitive ability, compared to individuals who are average or better functioning, or is it possibly the other way around (i.e., psychopathy elevates risk in higher cognitive functioning groups), or is it unrelated? There is limited available research on this matter, but the results of one investigation conducted in New Zealand (NZ) are telling. In a NZ a sample of 218 intrafamilial and extrafamilial adult child sexual abusers treated at a prison-based program, Beggs and Grace (2008) found that child sexual abusers who were high on psychopathy but below average in intellectual ability had higher and faster rates of sexual recidivism than high psychopathy men who were average or above IQ; that is, psychopathy and low IQ interacted to elevate sexual violence risk.

Current Study and Rationale

School and work feature prominently in assessment and programming initiatives to evaluate risk, identify services to reduce and manage risk, and to prevent recidivism in justice-involved youth. When examined empirically, psychopathy has been found to be differentially associated with intelligence and may represent a set of personality and behavior variables that could negatively intersect with low cognitive ability and school underachievement. The present study examined the intersection of psychopathy and cognitive ability and their relation to recidivism, with the addition of academic achievement and indicators of school engagement; a triad collectively referred to as CASE (i.e., cognitive ability, achievement, school engagement) variables for parsimony. We proposed the following hypotheses: (1) cognitive ability (IQ) and academic achievement would be inversely associated, and school disengagement positively associated, with the lifestyle and antisocial features of psychopathy; (2) higher levels of cognitive ability and academic achievement would be associated with decreased recidivism, while indicators of school disengagement, increased recidivism; and (3) cognitive ability, academic achievement, and school engagement would incrementally predict recidivism controlling for psychopathy, and (4) that high psychopathy youth who are below average cognitive ability, achievement, or disengaged from school would have elevated rates of future crime and violence.

Method

Sample

The sample consisted of 417 justice involved youth who were referred from the courts for forensic assessment and/or treatment services at a community-based mental health facility in a mid-sized Canadian Prairie city from 1996 to 2013. The sample was obtained drawing on two previous samples from published studies (Author Redacted 1 and (2) that examined dynamic violence risk and need among youth with histories of violent offending. On average, youth were 16.4 years of age on average (SD = 1.5, range age 12-20¸ n = 417), and approximately two thirds (68.3%, n = 285) were male, and one third, female (31.7%, n = 132). Ethnoracial information was not consistently reported being available for 88.5% (369/417) of the sample, of whom, three quarters (74.0%, n = 273/369) were of Indigenous descent, and the remainder 26.0% (n = 96/369), were non-Indigenous (White majority) descent.

Most youth (67.1%, n = 249/371) had a prior criminal conviction and approximately half had a prior violent offense (51.3%, n = 191/372). The sample tended to be higher risk-need than broader youth justice population, as a court referred sample. As such, most youth had a violent index conviction (79.0%, 316/400), most frequently for a nonsexual violent offense. At the time of referral, about one-half of youth were not currently attending school (56.3%, n = 210/373) and most had a history of prior suspension or expulsion (83.2%, n = 302/363). Most youth resided with at least one parental figure (45.6%, n = 183/401) when referred, followed by juvenile custody (20.4%, n = 82/401), group or foster care (12.7%, n = 51/401), additional relatives (12.2%, 49/401), or had some other form of living arrangement (e.g., friends, supported living, independent, transient; 9%, 36/401).

Measures

Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version

The Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL: YV; Forth et al., 2003) is a 20-item symptom construct rating scale designed to assess the traits and features of juvenile psychopathy. Items are scored on a three-point (0, 1, (2) ordinal scale, with possible total scores ranging from 0 to 40; higher scores represent a greater density and severity of traits of juvenile psychopathy. Factor analytic research (Neumann et al., 2006) demonstrates that PCL: YV item scores can be arranged into a two factor or four facet model representing a set of interpersonal (e.g., impression management, grandiose, manipulative) and affective (e.g., callous, lacks remorse, shallow emotion) traits (known collectively as Factor 1), and lifestyle (e.g., impulsivity, irresponsibility, parasitic) and antisocial (e.g., poor anger controls, early behavior problems, criminal versatility) characteristics (known collectively as Factor 2). Each sample examined the interrater reliability of PCL: YV ratings on randomly selected double coded cases, and this was generally very strong (intraclass correlation, single measure, absolute agreement): Author Redacted1 (n = 25) PCL: YV total ICC_A1 = .91, interpersonal ICC _A1 = .60, affective ICC _A1 = .66, lifestyle ICC _A1 = .89, antisocial ICC _A1 = .84; Author Redacted2 (n = 27) PCL: YV total ICC _A1 = .96, interpersonal ICC _A1 = .86, affective ICC _A1 = .84, lifestyle ICC _A1 = .78, antisocial ICC _A1 = .90.

Cognitive Ability

Cognitive ability was assessed via a validated and standardized measure of intellectual functioning commonly used in clinical practice at the time, most frequently via abbreviated measures including the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI) original (Wechsler, 1999) and second edition (Wechsler, 2001a, 2001b), and the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (K-BIT; Kaufman & Kaufman, 1990), or for more extensive assessments, via the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) third or fourth edition (Wechsler, 1991, 2003). All indexes were reported as standard scores, obtained from raw scores or percentile ranks, based on a normative M of 100 and SD of 15 as an aggregate measure of global cognitive ability: full scale IQ (FSIQ) or general ability index (GAI, combining the Verbal Comprehension Index [VCI] and Perceptual Reasoning Index [PRI]); verbal ability (i.e., Verbal IQ [VIQ] for the WASI, VCI for WISC measures), and nonverbal ability (i.e., Performance IQ [PIQ] for WASI, PRI for WISC measures).

Academic Achievement

Academic achievement was assessed via a validated and standardized measure of academic achievement, most frequently via an abbreviated measure such as the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-II-Abbreviated (WIAT-AB; Wechsler, 2001a, 2001b) or the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) third or fourth editions (Wilkinson, 1993; Wilkinson & Robertson, 2006), or for more extensive assessments, the full length WIAT (Wechsler, 1992) or its second edition (WIAT-II; Wechsler, 2001a, 2001b). As above, all indexes were reported as standard scores, obtained from raw scores or percentile ranks, based on a normative M of 100 and SD of 15 for reading, math, and writing/spelling as well as an overall achievement composite.

School Engagement

A school engagement composite was developed as a set of five variables to capture behavior, attitude, and achievement indicators. Each variable was coded from file, rescaled into a binary (1-0) format, and then summed to yield a composite score as follows: (1) less than grade 9 completed, based on information from current grade level and last grade completed; (2) absent from school at time of service delivery; (3) ever suspended/expelled; (4) education/employment identified as medium or high on Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI; Hoge & Andrews, 2003) or the Level of Service Inventory: Youth Saskatchewan Edition (LSI-Sk; Andrews et al., 2001); and (5) Negative attitude toward school dynamic item D4, scored as criminogenic (2 or 3 out of (3) on the Violence Risk Scale-Youth Version (VRS-YV; Wong et al., 2004-2011). We conservatively assigned missing items a default value of 0 up to two variables maximum per case. This strategy was supported given that the amount of missing data was very minimal (at or below 5%; Dettori et al., 2018); total missing data across all school engagement variables was minimal (i.e., 5.3%) and almost all cases (96.1%) had complete data or were missing only 1 variable. With a possible range from 0 to 5, higher composite ratings would represent a greater presence of impairments in school achievement, behavior, and attitudes.

Recidivism

Recidivism data were captured through formal criminal records obtained via the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) maintained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Recidivism was defined as any new conviction incurred since time of referral, or for youth in custody, following community release. Violence recidivism was defined as any new conviction for an offense with actual or potential for physical, psychological or threatened harm (e.g., assault, robbery, homicide), including sexual offenses. General recidivism was defined as any new conviction for any category of offense, either violent as previously defined, or nonviolent (e.g., property and drug offenses, breaches). Recidivism was coded in binary format along with the date of disposition to permit computation of time to recidivism for survival analyses or the imposition of fixed follow-ups (i.e., 3 vs 5-year, or shorter vs longer outcome).

Procedure

The present study is part of a broader investigation exploring dynamic violence risk in youth and combined two samples to maximize sample size and statistical power, which enabled the expansion and inclusion of new variables to examine novel research questions that could not be addressed using smaller independent samples. The cognitive ability, academic achievement, and school engagement variables, along with their composite, represent new data collected and aggregated across the samples. Each study obtained university research ethical approval, provincial Health Authority operational approval, and provincial Law Courts legal approval. Ethical approval (certificate no. redacted) was obtained from the [Institution Redacted] to combine the study datasets for analysis. The data collection of the study variables is briefly described below.

The PCL: YV measures were scored from youth Court and treatment files as outlined by Author Redacted1 and 2; the former of which had a subset of PCL: YV ratings that were completed in the field. The same applies to VRS-YV and YLS/CMI ratings (and the education item/domains on each measure) while LSI-Sk education/employment need ratings were obtained via presentence reports. The school engagement variables were extracted from a set of routine clinical intake procedures or incorporated from measures obtained from forensic assessments. The standardized measures of cognitive ability and academic achievement were frequently administered across samples, and all indexes were reported or converted to standard scores from percentiles. Recidivism data were captured from CPIC and coding was completed following data collection for all study measures (to ensure data collection was blind to outcome).

Planned Analyses

To examine the intersection of youth psychopathy with cognitive, academic, and broader developmental functioning we conducted several analyses using SPSS for Windows 31.0; all tests were two tailed. In lieu of correcting for multiple tests, which involves a certain amount of arbitrariness in selecting the number of comparisons to conduct and can unduly penalize smaller samples/subgroups compared to very large samples, we followed the recommendations of Althouse (2016; see also Boulesteix & Hoffmann, 2024): (1) clearly describe study procedure and planned analyses; (2) transparently report all effect sizes, p-values, and confidence intervals with equal emphasis, regardless of the significance of findings; (3) allow the reader to judge the relative weight of the interpretations and conclusions drawn from findings.

We begin by computing a set of descriptive statistics on all cognitive, achievement, and school engagement variables for sample characterization purposes; for informational purposes, we also computed intercorrelations of the cognitive, achievement, and school engagement variables. Second, we examine bivariate associations with PCL: YV facet and total scores via Pearson product moment correlations in the aggregate sample and as a function of gender; correlation magnitude between continuous variables was interpreted as small .10, medium .30, and large .50 (Cohen, 1992). These analyses represent the extent to which juvenile psychopathy is correlated with indexes of cognitive ability as well as other domains of achievement and functioning. Third, we followed with a series of multiple regressions in which we entered facet scores simultaneously and examined their independent predictive relations with aggregate indices of functioning, specifically, GAI/FSIQ (cognitive), Achievement composite (academic), and the school engagement composite variable. Broad indices of cognitive ability and achievement were prioritized both for space purposes and given that these are the most comprehensive and representative indicators of functioning across these domains.

The remaining analyses examined associations of cognitive, achievement, and school engagement indicators with recidivism on their own through bivariate analyses (receiver operator characteristic [ROC] curve), and in tandem with juvenile psychopathy through a set of targeted Cox regression and survival analyses. ROC analyses examined the bivariate prediction of binary 3 and 5-year violent and general recidivism by the cognitive, achievement, and school engagement indicators. ROCs generate an area under the curve (AUC) statistic representing in this case, the extent to which a recidivist functioned more poorly on these indicators of functioning, than a randomly selected nonrecidivist. AUC values range from 0 to 1.0, which values of .50 representing chance level predictive accuracy and values of .56 small, .64 medium, and .71 large (Rice & Harris, 2005). The recidivism criterion was reversed (i.e., entered as 0 instead of 1) for ROC analysis of the cognitive and achievement variables so that associations between higher ability and decreased recidivism was represented by an AUC above .50; for analyses of the school engagement variables, the criterion value was entered as usual (i.e., 1) given that higher scores on these variables would be associated with increased recidivism.

The Cox regression survival analyses examined the incremental predictive validity of the cognitive, achievement, and school engagement aggregate measures for general and violent recidivism over time, controlling for PCL: YV total score, and is commonly used to examine incremental predictive validity (Hanson, 2022). Given the potential for differential associations between PCL: YV scores and those on the cognitive ability, achievement, and school engagement measures, we conducted these analyses on the aggregate sample as well as stratified by gender. Cox regression generates a hazard ratio (e^B), representing the percent change in hazard (i.e., recidivism) per one-unit change in the predictor variable; values above 1.0 represent associations with increased recidivism, while values below 1.0 represent associations with decreased recidivism; the status variable (recidivism) was consistently entered as 1 and the survival time variable was time to first recidivism event, or for nonrecidivists, the total follow-up time. The analyses demonstrate the extent to which higher levels of cognitive ability, academic achievement, or school engagement potentially mitigate risk for future recidivism over and above baseline measures of juvenile psychopathy.

The final set of analyses unpack the Cox regressions through a series of Kaplan-Meier survival analyses examining dichotomized groups of average (score of 85 or higher) vs below average (1 SD below mean or < 85) functioning on the cognitive/achievement measures and school engagement composite (mean split, < 3 vs 3+), paired with PCL: YV scores (mean splits, high 20+, low < 20). We do this on the aggregate sample, given that gendered subgroups of the dichotomized variables would be prohibitively small for meaningful analyses; an exception was post hoc gender stratified analyses for psychopathy X IQ associations with recidivism in light of the result of the Cox regressions. The analyses examine the extent to which youth with higher levels of functioning/ability, even with substantive psychopathic traits, may have lower trajectories of recidivism than lower functioning/ability youth, particularly if they are also high on juvenile psychopathy traits.

Results

Sample Description and Intercorrelations of CASE Measures

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics (bottom panel) for and intercorrelations among the CASE measures. As seen in this table, youth tended to score below average on global cognitive ability (FSIQ/GAI) and verbal problem-solving ability, but within normal limits and significantly higher on nonverbal problem-solving ability (PIQ/PRI), t = 10.99, p < .001 d = 0.93. Further, youth scored particularly low on Math achievement and about a standard deviation below the mean for reading and writing/spelling; the overall achievement composite (average or equivalent of the three indexes) was below average overall. There was, however, much variability across these indexes as demonstrated by a sizeable SD for each approximating the normative SD (15) for these measures: FSIQ/GAI med 85, range 54-116; VIQ/VCI med 78.5, range 55-117, PIQ/PRI med 94, range 57-127. Most of the youth (around or greater than three quarters of the sample) had been previously suspended/expelled, or had criminogenic ratings for the youth LSI and VRS-YV education variables. Overall, youth averaged 3 out of 5 school engagement domains, with more than two thirds of the sample achieving a score of 3 or greater.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelation Matrix of Cognitive Ability, Achievement, and School Engagement Predictors

CASE measure	Cognitive ability			Achievement				School engagement
CASE measure	FSIQ	VIQ	PIQ	Reading	Math	Writing	Ach comp	Current grade	Last grade	< gr 9	School abs	Sus/exp	Ed/Em YLS/Sk	NAS VRS	SE comp
Cognitive ability
VIQ/VCI	.84***
PIQ/PRI	.83***	.49***
Achievement
Reading	.57***	.59***	.40***
Math	.59***	.54***	.49***	.62***
Writing/Spelling	.53***	.47***	.50***	.68***	.66***
Ach comp	.63***	.59***	.52***	.88***	.85***	.90***
School engagement
Current grade	.09	.17	−.07	.26**	.22*	.18	.25*
Last grade compl	.22	.32**	.04	−.01	.24	.14	.13	.80***
< grade 9 compl	−.16	−.23**	−.07	−.20*	−.21*	−.19*	−.23**	−.75***	−.80***
School absence	.04	−.07	.06	−.04	−.04	.08	.00	−.15*	−.15*	−.80***
Susp/expelled	−.01	−.02	−.01	−.04	.07	−.02	.01	−.12	−.03	.08	.04
Ed/Em (YLS/Sk)	.15	−.02	.16	.04	.06	.13	.08	−.21***	−.18*	.18***	.40***	.10
NAS (VRS-YV)	−.15	−.30***	.04	−.15	−.06	−.05	−.09	−.21***	−.27***	−.14**	.55***	.21***	.53***
SE composite	−.06	−.21**	.07	−.15	−.09	−.06	−.11	−.46***	−.49***	.49***	.61***	.35***	.67***	.67***	-
n	151	144	141	138	135	120	138	300	224	399	372	362	380	404	405
M	83.9	80.7	93.0	85.3	77.4	85.3	82.5	9.3	8.3	-	-	-	-	2.0	3.3
SD	13.4	12.4	13.6	14.8	13.2	15.9	12.7	1.4	1.4	-	-	-	-	1.0	1.4
%	49.0	65.3	26.2	42.4	69.1	48.8	51.1	-	—	60.7	56.3	83.2	76.3	72.6	71.4

Note. ***p ≤ .001, **p ≤ .01, *p ≤ .05; FSIQ/GAI = full scale IQ/general ability index; VIQ/VCI = verbal IQ/verbal comprehension index; PIQ/PRI = performance IQ/perceptual reasoning; SE = school engagement composite variable; % represents frequency of cases for the following: FSIQ/GAI, VIQ/VCI, and PIQ/PRI = % and number of cases scoring below average (<85); Achievement Indexes = % cases scoring below average (<85); youth level of service/level of service inventory-Saskatchewan youth edition education/employment (Ed/Em YLS/Sk) rating moderate or higher; violence risk scale-youth version negative attitude towards school (NAS VRS-YV) dynamic factor rating of 2 or 3; School engagement (SE) composite rating identifying 3 or more concerns (range 0-5).

Cognitive ability and achievement indexes all intercorrelated highly but showed variable associations with the more behaviorally based school engagement measures, with a few exceptions being VIQ (or VCI when available) showing inverse associations with negative school attitudes (VRS-YV), below grade 9 completion, and the school engagement composite. Reading achievement and the achievement composite variable similarly had significant associations with grade level variables. Most of the individual school engagement variables had small to medium, but often significant intercorrelations. The education/employment domain from the youth LSI measures and the equivalent from the VRS-YV had significant associations with most grade and conduct based school variables.

Bivariate Associations of PCL: YV Scores With CASE Measures

Table 2 presents the bivariate associations of scores on the CASE measures with PCL: YV facet and total scores in the aggregate sample and within gender subgroups. Of the PCL: YV measures, only Interpersonal facet scores correlated significantly with all cognitive ability and achievement measures, with the exception of VIQ/VCI, an association that was seen exclusively among male, but not female, youth. By contrast, only among female youth were Affective facet scores substantively inversely correlated (medium to large effects) with all measures of cognitive ability. None of the remaining PCL: YV facets or total score correlated meaningfully with any ability or achievement indexes, save for inverse associations with verbal ability. In turn, Lifestyle and Antisocial facet scores and PCL: YV total scores demonstrated medium to large correlations with all school engagement variables indicative of problematic school attitudes and conduct including the school engagement composite.

Table 2.

Cognitive Ability, Achievement, and School Engagement Descriptives and Bivariate Associations With PCL: YV Measures by Gender

CASE measure	Interpersonal			Affective			Lifestyle			Antisocial			Total
CASE measure	Total	Male	Female	Total	Male	Female	Total	Male	Female	Total	Male	Female	Total	Male	Female
Cognitive ability
FSIQ/GAI	.17*	.26**	−.03	−.13	.03	−.47***	−.11	−.15	−.05	−.04	−.09	.12	−.01	.02	−.06
VIQ/VCI	.02	.06	−.09	−.20*	−.10	−.45***	−.32***	−.35***	−.27	−.19*	−.25*	.01	−.19*	−.19	−.18
PIQ/PRI	.18*	.28**	−.01	−.03	.15	−.40**	.06	.02	.10	.08	.06	.14	.10	.14	.01
Achievement
Reading	.22**	.31**	−.08	.08	.07	.05	−.13	−.10	−.23	−.11	−.16	.01	.01	.02	−.04
Math	.17*	.27**	−.14	.08	.13	−.05	−.09	−.04	−.35*	−.06	−.07	−.04	.00	.04	−.17
Writing/Spelling	.19*	.27*	.01	−.03	−.03	.09	−.08	−.14	.04	−.07	−.08	−.01	−.04	−.06	.05
Ach comp	.21*	.31**	−.12	.06	.08	−.01	−.11	−.10	−.21	−.10	−.12	−.04	−.02	.01	−.10
School engagement
Current grade	−.07	−.02	−.18	−.08	−.11	−.20**	−.29***	−.27***	−.27***	−.30***	−.31***	−.28***	−.27***	−.26***	−.31***
Last grade	.07	−.06	.29*	−.10	−.06	−.05	−.26***	−.31***	−.10	−.28***	−.36***	−.02	−.20**	−.28***	.05
Less than gr 9	.00	.08	−.16	.07	.10	.03	.23***	.25***	.13	.20***	.25***	.05	.19***	.24***	.03
Absent school	.07	.07	.08	.12*	.16	.02	.33***	.33***	.34***	.24***	.28***	.15	.24***	.26***	.19*
Susp/expelled	.08	.08	.06	.19***	.21***	.14	.25***	.35***	.05	.28***	.35***	.11	.27***	.33***	.15
Ed/Em (YLS/Sk)	.14*	.14*	.16	.07	.14*	−.09	.43***	.46***	.34***	.32***	.41***	.09	.35***	.39***	.23*
NAS (VRS-YV)	.05	.01	.16	.25***	.26***	.45***	.54***	.57***	.45***	.46***	.49***	.34***	.42***	.42***	.41***
SE composite	.10	.09	.20*	.21***	.22***	.44***	.53***	.56***	.44***	.45***	.54***	.27***	.43***	.47***	.37***

Note. ***p ≤ .001, **p ≤ .01, *p ≤ .05; PCL: YV = psychopathy checklist: Youth version; FSIQ/GAI = full scale IQ/general ability index; VIQ/VCI = verbal IQ/verbal comprehension index; PIQ/PRI = performance IQ/perceptual reasoning; Ed/Em (YLS/Sk) = education/employment domain, youth level of service/level of service Saskatchewan youth edition; NAS (VRS-YV) = negative attitude toward school, violence risk scale-youth version; SE = school engagement.

A series of multiple regressions were conducted to examine the incremental associations of the PCL: YV facets for broad indicators of cognitive ability, and the achievement and school engagement composite variable scores in the aggregate sample and among gender subgroups (Table 3). In the aggregate sample Interpersonal facet scores uniquely predicted increased global cognitive ability and academic achievement scores, affective facet scores predicted decreased cognitive ability, and Lifestyle and Antisocial facet scores uniquely predicted a larger number of school engagement concerns. Gender stratified analyses helped unpack these findings; the findings for male youth paralleled those of the aggregate sample, minus the association of the affective facet with decreased cognitive ability, which was observed for female youth.

Table 3.

Multiple Regression: Incremental Associations of PCL: YV Facet Scores to Global Cognitive Ability, Achievement, and School Engagement Measures by Gender

PCL: YV regression model	Total				Male				Female
PCL: YV regression model	B	SE	β	p	B	SE	β	p	B	SE	β	p
DV = FSIQ/GAI
Interpersonal	2.06	.656	.28	.002	2.24	.723	.329	.003	.504	1.45	.055	.730
Affective	−1.38	.684	−.21	.045	.379	.842	.060	.654	−4.90	1.15	−.508	<.001
Lifestyle	−.433	.627	−.07	.491	−1.36	.737	−.241	.068	.325	1.25	.038	.797
Antisocial	.058	.537	.01	.914	−.342	.648	−.068	.599	1.04	.978	.172	.295
(Constant)	89.19	3.78			87.76	4.02			94.79	9.06
Full model	F (4, 145) = 3.19, p = .015, R = .28, R² = .08				F (4, 97) = 3.62, p = .009, R = .36, R² = .13				F (4, 43) = 3.55, p = .014, R = .50, R² = .25
DV = Ach comp
Interpersonal	1.78	.664	.25	.008	2.51	.783	.355	.002	−1.29	1.43	−.173	.373
Affective	.577	.694	.09	.407	.342	.828	.055	.680	1.21	1.35	.168	.378
Lifestyle	−.878	.630	−.15	.166	−.863	.751	−.152	.254	−2.05	1.38	−.272	.145
Antisocial	−.654	.510	−.13	.202	−.605	.619	−.123	.331	.425	1.05	.080	.687
(Constant)	86.68	3.72			85.60	4.15			92.16	9.13
Full model	F (4, 132) = 3.23, p = .015, R = .30, R² = .09				F (4, 90) = 3.80, p = .007, R = .38, R² = .14				F (4, 37) = 0.70, p = .600, R = .26, R² = .07
DV = SE comp
Interpersonal	−.033	.035	−.05	.343	−.061	.042	−.082	.145	.082	.068	.111	.229
Affective	−.054	.033	−.09	.101	−.053	.041	−.803	.196	−.039	.054	−.069	.470
Lifestyle	.259	.033	.44	<.001	.254	.041	.434	<.001	.248	.059	.408	<.001
Antisocial	.125	.029	.23	<.001	.152	.035	.287	<.001	.028	.057	.050	.624
(Constant)	1.25	.174			1.14	.200			1.70
Full model	F (4, 397) = 46.35, p < .001, R = .56, R² = .32				F (4, 272) = 38.92, p < .001, R = .60, R² = .36				F (4, 120) = 7.67, p < .001, R = .45, R² = .20

Note. DV = dependent variable; significant p-values in bold font; FSIQ/GAI = Full Scale IQ/General Ability Index; SE = school engagement.

Bivariate Associations of CASE Measures With Recidivism

Table 4 reports gender stratified bivariate associations of the cognitive, achievement, and school engagement indicators with general and violent recidivism at 3-years follows-up; findings for extended follow-ups (i.e., 5 years) demonstrated the same trends in effect size magnitude and p-value. As seen in the table, in the aggregate sample, the cognitive ability measures were weakly and nonsignificantly associated with recidivism outcomes; with the exception of better nonverbal ability being associated with increased 3-year general recidivism. Among male youth, however, higher levels of general cognitive and verbal ability were associated with decreased violent, but not general recidivism, while among female youth, higher levels across each cognitive ability index were actually associated with increased violent and general recidivism. Moreover, academic achievement generally had better associations with outcome although effect sizes were all small or barely above chance; in this case, higher levels of reading, math, and overall academic achievement were associated with decreased 3-year violent recidivism, but no other outcomes; these associations with decreased violence in the aggregate sample could be explained by the same set of associations among male youth, while for female youth no such association were observed. Finally, the school engagement indicators, many of which represented established domains of functioning captured within forensic measures and targeted for services, had more frequent, stronger (small to medium effects), and consistent associations with outcome. Specifically, absent from school, suspension/expulsion history, the education domain on the YLS/LSI-Sk and VRS-YV, and the school engagement composite, each significantly predicted outcome in the aggregate sample and male youth; among female youth the two sets of risk measure school indicators and the school engagement composite predicted increased recidivism.

Table 4.

Bivariate Associations of Cognitive Ability, Achievement, and School Engagement Predictors for 3-Year Violent and General Recidivism by Gender

CASE Measure	Violent recidivism						General recidivism
	Total		Male		Female		Total		Male		Female
	AUC [95% CI]		AUC [95% CI]		AUC [95% CI]		AUC [95% CI]		AUC [95% CI]		AUC [95% CI]
Cognitive ability
FSIQ/GAI	.52	[.42, .61]	.63*	[.52, .74]	.28**	[.14, .42]	.44	[.34, .54]	.54	[.42, .66]	.24***	[.09, .38]
VIQ/VCI	.56	[.46, .66]	.65*	[.53, .77]	.38	[.22, .54]	.52	[.42, .61]	.60	[.48, .72]	.33*	[.17, .49]
PIQ/PRI	.41	[.32, .51]	.50	[.38, .62]	.26***	[.12, .41]	.39*	[.30, .48]	.47	[.35, .60]	.22***	[.08, .35]
Achievement
Reading	.60*	[.50, .70]	.64*	[.52, .76]	.53	[.34, .71]	.52	[.42, .62]	.53	[.41, .65]	.53	[.35, .70]
Math	.60*	[.51, .70]	.64*	[.53, .76]	.52	[.32, .71]	.47	[.37, .57]	.49	[.37, .62]	.43	[.25, .61]
Writing/Spelling	.60	[.49, .71]	.66*	[.53, .79]	.47	[.28, .67]	.54	[.43, .65]	.57	[.44, .70]	.46	[.27, .64]
Achieve comp	.62*	[.52, .71]	.66**	[.55, .77]	.51	[.32, .69]	.51	[.41, .61]	.53	[.41, .65]	.47	[.29, .65]
School engagement
Current grade	.57	[.50, .64]	.60*	[.52, .68]	.54	[.40, .69]	.50	[.43, .56]	.60*	[.51, .69]	.46	[.30, .62]
Last grade	.59*	[.51, .67]	.64**	[.55, .72]	.53	[.35, .70]	.53	[.46, .61]	.50	[.42, .58]	.54	[.43, .66]
Less than grade 9	.55	[.49, .61]	.59*	[.52, .66]	.50	[.38, .61]	.51	[.45, .56]	.53	[.46, .60]	.50	[.39, .60]
Absent from school	.60***	[.54, .66]	.61**	[.54, .68]	.60	[.48, .72]	.65***	[.60, .71]	.68***	[.62, .75]	.60	[.49, .70]
Susp/expelled	.56*	[.50, .62]	.60**	[.53, .67]	.46	[.33, .58]	.58*	[.52, .64]	.60**	[.53, .68]	.51	[.41, .62]
Ed/Em (YLS/Sk)	.60***	[.54, .65]	.61**	[.54, .68]	.59	[.48, .69]	.64***	[.58, .69]	.65***	[.58, .72]	.63*	[.53, .73]
NAS (VRS-YV)	.66***	[.60, .71]	.67***	[.61, .74]	.60	[.50, .71]	.70***	[.65, .75]	.73***	[.67, .80]	.63**	[.54, .73]
SE composite	.67***	[.61, .72]	.71***	[.65, .78]	.59	[.49, .70]	.70***	[.65, .75]	.74***	[.68, .80]	.67***	[.57, .76]

Note. ***p ≤ .001, **p ≤ .01, *p ≤ .05. AUCs for cognitive ability and achievement predictors are reverse keyed, such that positive values (i.e., >.50) represent associations with decreased recidivism. AUCs .56 (small), .64 (medium), .71 (large); inverse associations are .44 (small), .36 (medium), .29 (large). Ed/Em (YLS/Sk) = education/employment domain, youth evel of service/level of service inventory Saskatchewan youth edition; NAS (VRS-YV) = negative attitudes toward school, violence risk scale-youth version; SE = school engagement.

Incremental Predictive Associations of Psychopathy and CASE Measures With Recidivism

Table 5 reports the results of the Cox regression survival analyses for incremental prediction of recidivism by PCL: YV total score and the aggregate cognitive (model 1), academic achievement (model 2), and school engagement (model 3) predictors in the aggregate sample and across gender groups. In the prediction of violent recidivism, PCL: YV total incrementally predicted this outcome across all models controlling for the other predictors. FSIQ/GAI score had no association with outcome in the aggregate sample, but it was uniquely associated with decreased violent recidivism among male youth, but increased recidivism (both outcomes) for female youth. The academic achievement composite was similarly uniquely associated with decreased violence in the aggregate sample and among male youth only; associations with decreased general recidivism were not significant across gender groups or in the aggregate sample. Finally, the school engagement composite was uniquely associated with increased violent and general recidivism in the aggregate sample and among male youth.

Table 5.

Cox Regression Survival Analyses: Incremental Predictive Associations of Juvenile Psychopathy and Cognitive Ability, Achievement, and School-Engagement Measures for Recidivism as a Function of Gender

Regression model	Total sample					Male					Female
Regression model	n	B	SE	p	e^B [95% CI]	n	B	SE	p	e^B [95% CI]	n	B	SE	p	e^B [95% CI]
Violent recidivism
Model 1a
PCL: YV total	149	.082	.018	<.001	1.09 [1.05, 1.13]	100	.073	.021	<.001	1.08 [1.03, 1.12]	49	.161	.042	<.001	1.18 [1.08, 1.28]
FSIQ/GAI		−.007	.009	.426	0.99 [0.98, 1.01]		−.026	.011	.018	0.98 [0.95, 0.996]		.036	.016	.028	1.04 [1.004, 1.07]
Model 2a
PCL: YV	135	.084	.020	<.001	1.09 [1.05, 1.13]	92	.079	.024	<.001	1.08 [1.03, 1.14]	43	.149	.047	.002	1.16 [1.06, 1.27]
Achieve comp		−.031	.010	.002	0.97 [0.95, 0.99]		−.042	.012	<.001	0.96 [0.94, 0.98]		−.001	.019	.951	1.00 [0.96, 1.04]
Model 3a
PCL: YV total	402	.058	.011	<.001	1.06 [1.04, 1.08]	275	.050	.012	<.001	1.05 [1.03, 1.08]	127	.081	.025	.001	1.08 [1.03, 1.14]
SE composite		.193	.059	<.001	1.21 [1.08, 1.36]		.304	.069	<.001	1.36 [1.18, 1.55]		−.027	.130	.835	0.97 [0.76, 1.26]
General recidivism
Model 1b
PCL: YV total	149	.067	.015	<.001	1.07 [1.04, 1.10]	100	.060	.017	<.001	1.06 [1.03, 1.10]	49	.081	.033	.014	1.08 [1.02, 1.16]
FSIQ		.003	.007	.668	1.003 [0.99, 1.02]		−.008	.009	.347	0.99 [0.98, 1.01]		.028	.013	.032	1.03 [1.002, 1.06]
Model 2b
PCL: YV	135	.072	.017	<.001	1.08 [1.04, 1.11]	92	.065	.018	<.001	1.07 [1.03, 1.11]	43	.096	.039	.013	1.10 [1.02, 1.19]
Achieve comp		−.013	.008	.112	0.99 [0.97, 1.00]		−.015	.009	.098	0.99 [0.97, 1.00]		−.006	.017	.700	0.99 [0.96, 1.03]
Model 3b
PCL: YV total	402	.049	.009	<.001	1.05 [1.03, 1.07]	275	.044	.011	<.001	1.05 [1.02, 1.07]	127	.055	.020	.005	1.06 [1.02, 1.10]
SE composite		.222	.049	<.001	1.25 [1.14, 1.37]		.272	.055	<.001	1.31 [1.18, 1.46]		.187	.107	.081	1.21 [0.98, 1.49]

Note. Significant p-values in bold font; PCL: YV = psychopathy checklist: Youth version; SE composite = school engagement composite.

Figure 1 presents the results of Kaplan-Meier survival analyses for youth who are low vs high on cognitive ability (IQ) and above vs below the mean on PCL: YV score of 20 in the total sample and across gender groups; results for academic achievement and the school engagement composite on the aggregate sample are presented in Supplemental Figure S1. For the cognitive ability (IQ) X psychopathy analyses, high psychopathy youth had higher rates of violent recidivism regardless of ability level compared to low psychopathy youth. Unexpectedly, high psychopathy youth who were also average or above average IQ had a steeper general recidivism trajectory than similarly high psychopathy youth who were below average IQ, with association at log rank χ² (df = 1, N = 96) = 3.46, p = .063; however, this association was accounted for by female youth, as per the Cox regressions, in which high psychopathy youth with average or above IQ had higher and faster rates of both violent (log rank χ² (df = 1, N = 32) = 10.47, p < .001) and general recidivism (log rank χ² (df = 1, N = 32) = 9.81, p = .002) than high psychopathy below average IQ youth. By contrast, high psychopathy below average IQ male youth had non-significantly higher failure rates of violent recidivism than high psychopathy average IQ youth χ² (df = 1, N = 64) = 1.71, p = .191), while differences between the two groups with respect to general recidivism. were negligible.

Figure 1.

Kaplan-Meier survival analysis: Trajectories of violent and general recidivism as a function of juvenile psychopathy, cognitive ability, and gender

For the academic achievement X psychopathy analyses, high psychopathy youth who were also average or above academic achievement had shallower violent recidivism trajectories than high psychopathy youth with below average achievement, log rank χ² (df = 1, N = 85) 2.89, p = .089. For general recidivism there were no meaningful differences between high psychopathy youth groups, irrespective of achievement; both groups also had higher rates of general recidivism than low psychopathy youth. For the school engagement composite, high psychopathy youth who also scored above the mean on the school engagement indicators had higher and faster rates of both violent, log rank χ² (df = 1, N = 209) = 10.81, p = .001, and general, log rank χ2 (df = 1, N = 209) = 15.54, p < .001, recidivism than similarly high psychopathy youth who scored below the mean on this composite. There were no significant differences between high psychopathy youth who were low on the school engagement composite and either low psychopathy groups, irrespective of composite measure score.

Discussion

The present study examined the intersection of juvenile psychopathy with cognitive ability, academic achievement, and school engagement variables in relation to recidivism as a function of gender. This extends a body of work exploring the nexus of psychopathy with cognitive ability, the role and relevance of CASE variables in mitigating risk for recidivism, with implications of the intersection of these variables for service planning and risk management.

Elucidating the Link Between Juvenile Psychopathy and CASE Measures

Psychopathy bore a more nuanced association with indices of cognitive ability and academic achievement, with two themes consistent with meta-analytic findings (Sánchez de Ribera et al., 2019); one was significant small to medium inverse associations with verbal problem-solving ability with PCL: YV total score and affective, lifestyle, antisocial facet scores in bivariate analyses. A second, perhaps more notable exception was that interpersonal facet scores were positively associated with higher levels of global cognitive ability, nonverbal reasoning, and all domains of academic achievement, but only among male youth; an association not only observed in bivariate analyses, but that was maintained in multiple regression analyses controlling for scores on all other facets per Sánchez de Ribera et al. (2019). Among female youth, only affective facet scores were associated (with decreased cognitive ability), and no relations were observed with achievement.

Youth with high interpersonal facet scores tend to be more adept at impression management, and behaviorally display higher levels of grandiosity, manipulation, and deceitfulness. These verbal propensities may reflect better-developed cognitive abilities in part (also reflected in achievement testing). A caveat, though, is that interpersonal facet scores were unrelated to verbal problem solving ability, which is partly confounded with academic achievement, and perhaps the ability to be retained in a school placement, but it also a measure of crystallized intelligence (e.g., academic knowledge), while nonverbal and aggregate abilities have much heavier loading in fluid cognitive abilities. The tendency to produce lots of speech, be confident in what people say, but be wrong (e.g., defining words or concepts), would be reflected in high interpersonal scores but not necessarily higher crystallized ability (VIQ); instead, the observed associations of the interpersonal facet with nonverbal reasoning and global cognitive ability may reflect higher levels of fluid ability, that is, cognitive functions involved in the processing, organization, and integration of information. It is unclear what may account for the inverse associations between affective facet scores and cognitive ability among female youth, however. It may be that girls with callous and unemotional features have impaired perspective taking and social cognitive functioning as reflected in poorer performance on intelligence measures (e.g., see Herpers et al., 2014 for a review of callous-unemotional traits and cognition).

The associations of the lifestyle and antisocial facets as well as total score with school engagement variables primarily seem to reflect greater school disengagement in the form of conduct and achievement problems, and this was generally reflected across gender groups. Given that the lifestyle and antisocial facets uniquely and incrementally predicted school engagement composite variable scores, it may be that the features of psychopathy of these domains contribute to school-related concerns in different ways. The features inherent within the lifestyle facet (e.g., proneness to boredom, impulsivity, irresponsibility) bode for poor effort and motivation, absenteeism, and underachievement, while the features of the antisocial facet (poor anger controls, early behavior problems, serious delinquency) may reflect defiant oppositional behavior, negative school attitudes, and school conduct problems occurring in academic settings where prosocial and rule adhering behavior is normative, encouraged, and expected.

Juvenile Psychopathy, CASE Variables, and Risk Mitigation: Implications for RNR

Cognitive ability, achievement, and school engagement variables collectively encompass a set of need and responsivity issues, with the potential to mitigate (or exacerbate) risk for high psychopathy youth. That these variables predicted recidivism in bivariate analyses, and in some cases incrementally predicted outcome controlling for psychopathy underscores their risk and need relevance; however, different patterns of association were found among male and female youth. In turn, these variables also have implications for tailoring service delivery and case management to promote client engagement also identifies their responsivity relevance.

Academic achievement mitigated risk for violence in high psychopathy male youth, but not other forms of delinquent behavior; and not among female youth. Relatedly, among male youth, higher levels of global cognitive ability were also associated with decreased violent recidivism, controlling for psychopathy. On the achievement dimension, youth who have adequately developed academic skills (reading, math, writing/spelling) and by extension, fluid reasoning ability that facilitated the acquisition of such competencies, as represented by global cognitive ability, should be at reduced risk for antisocial behavior, even with substantial psychopathic traits. The association with reduced violence may represent improved self-regulation, inner verbal speech, better executive functioning, and decreased impulsivity.

An unexpected finding was that high psychopathy female youth, who were average or above average intellectual functioning, actually had higher rates of both sets of recidivism outcomes, than similarly psychopathic youth who were of lower global cognitive ability. It is unclear what may account for this finding, which may also be sample specific. It is possible that average or better cognitive ability could be a misused competency for some youth, for instance, those youth who are grandiose and manipulative may believe the rules do not apply to them and have an inflated belief in their ability to skirt the law; however, they may be abundantly controlled to refrain from violence. For female youth in particular, the youth justice system may have a gendered response to girls, such that a higher threshold of psychological characteristics of risk and need may be required for a referral for a court ordered assessment or violence reduction services; that is, the female youth in the sample have broadly elevated risk, need, and responsivity characteristics, as reflected in this differential association of cognitive ability and its intersection with juvenile psychopathy to outcome.

Further, academic achievement and indicators of positive school engagement appeared to mitigate recidivism risk after controlling for psychopathy among male youth; or put another way, achievement deficits and broad concerns in school engagement functioning (i.e., school disengagement) had added risk relevance to psychopathy, bearing in mind that some of these indicators (e.g., suspension and expulsion) could serve as proxies for antisociality. School engagement has important implications for criminal desistence as it is a structured period of time during the day, with adult prosocial interaction, and reduces opportunities for antisocial behavior. Youth develop learning and information processing skills, prosocial values and attitudes, the potential for developing positive prosocial peer ties, and becoming involved in prosocial initiatives that add a sense of mastery and meaning (e.g., music, after school sports, reading and chess clubs, school newsletter) and mitigate risk for antisocial behavior. As such, these youth would likely stand to benefit from social skills training and setting variables per the RNR principles and extant youth meta-analytic literature (Lipsey, 2009).

Walters (2024a, 2024b) writes extensively on the role of “turning points” as being pivotal experiences in an individual’s life that divert them from criminal activity to a prosocial life trajectory. Key examples from the literature included getting married, starting a career, or service in the military, all of which are momentous and life changing. Analyzing data from two large longitudinal studies of low to moderate risk youth in the community, Walters (2024a, 2024b) found that positive changes in school grades and engagement in homework predicted criminal desistance. Such relations were in part mediated by changes in moral reasoning (e.g., appreciating the wrongfulness of antisocial behavior) and positive peer ties. In the present study, it is not clear what mechanisms may be at work with risk mitigating influences of academic achievement and school engagement, but it is possible that several of the elements identified in Walters (2024a, 2024b) lines of research could speak to turning points that helped mitigate risk even for high psychopathy youth.

A large literature supports the use of educational interventions to buffer risk for recidivism, but also other important life outcomes that, in turn, may help set turning points in motion to steer youth onto a new trajectory. For instance, in a meta-analysis of juvenile education programs for justice involved youth (k = 18), Steele et al. (2016) examined the impact of remedial academic instruction, computer assisted instruction (CAI), personalized academic instruction, vocational education, and general education development (GED) completion on educational and correctional outcomes. All programs were associated with decreased recidivism, although only GED completion was significantly so, with a 46% decreased odds of recidivism. Otherwise, personalized instruction and vocational approaches were each associated with increased odds of obtaining employment post-release and completing a diploma, while remedial and CAI approaches were associated with improved reading comprehension. It is possible that such findings may represent turning points (e.g., completing a diploma and getting a job), that can propel and movement toward a better life with possibilities beyond crime and violence.

To the extent that educational interventions are adapted to the responsivity characteristics of youth, commonly seen in modified curricula or alternative school placements we would assert that this should be associated with better school retention and gain. For instance, this could include smaller class sizes with more individualized educator contact, staffing programs with teachers with training in behavioral principles to engage disruptive youth (e.g., de-escalation and conflict resolution skills, trauma informed teaching methods) and prosocial role modelling, modified curricula and instructional styles adapted to the youth’s developmental ability and learning style, and so forth. Fine et al. (2018) found that alternative school programs for justice involved youth were associated with fewer school misconducts, better attendance, improved school attitude, and better grades than traditional school placements. Although Fine et al. (2018) reported that alternative school placements were associated with higher rates of rearrest than traditional placements, it is likely that youth referred to alternative placements were higher baseline risk and need (hence the reason for such a referral), which could explain this finding.

Strengths, Limitations, and Conclusions

The present study has some notable strengths and limitations with implications for research and service delivery. First, the present study provided a comprehensive and multi-method examination of cognitive ability and related competencies as these relate to psychopathy and recidivism outcome, including standardized measures of achievement and ability, and indicators of school engagement. Further, PCL: YV ratings were obtained with a high level of coding fidelity from Court and treatment files along with comprehensive recidivism data to track youth criminal outcomes. The utilization of two combined samples increased statistical power to examine the substantive research questions to detect meaningful effects. Taken together, these data characteristics and design features enabled an examination of the risk mitigating, and hence potentially protective effects of CASE measures, even among high psychopathy youth with directions for service delivery through educational interventions adapted to the youth’s responsivity characteristics per the RNR principles.

Although the sample size and composition were sufficient to answer the substantive research questions, it was not large enough for the cognitive ability and achievement measures to conduct intersectional subgroup analyses (i.e., gender by ethnocultural heritage). Further research would benefit from diverse expanded samples with sufficient n to conduct intersectional analyses; that is, to examine to what extent the psychopathy IQ/achievement/school engagement nexus may be moderated by socio-cultural factors, including its relationship to outcome. Moreover, the predominant reliance on file-based ratings of PCL: YV scores could have resulted in underrating some traits (e.g., interpersonal and affective features), hence, potentially impacting predictor-criterion associations. In addition, the use of criminal convictions as our recidivism operationalization, as opposed to broader criteria such as police arrests and charges, likely underestimates actual rates of general recidivism; this may have relevance for youth with higher interpersonal and executive abilities potentially being able to skirt justice involvement following criminal behavior. Finally, the only outcomes examined were criminolegal in nature (i.e., recidivism); the inclusion of school and work outcomes related to educational interventions (e.g., attendance, conduct, completion, grades, reading skills, etc.) related to such services could strengthen our understanding of the RNR implications for high psychopathy youth who also present with issues in cognitive ability, achievement, and school engagement.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Making a CASE for Revisiting Psychopathy and Intelligence in Youth Justice Populations: Implications for RNR and Links to Community Recidivism

Supplemental Material for Making a CASE for Revisiting Psychopathy and Intelligence in Youth Justice Populations: Implications for RNR and Links to Community Recidivism by Keira C. Stockdale, Mark E. Olver and Kristine M. Lovatt in Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice.

Footnotes

Author’s Note

The views, opinions, and assumptions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Saskatchewan Health Authority, Correctional Service of Canada, or the University of Saskatchewan.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Saskatchewan Health Authority; Saskatchewan Ministry of Justice: Corrections and Policing; and the Saskatchewan Law Courts for their support of this research.

ORCID iD

Keira C. Stockdale

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Open Science Statement

As the present study features use of protected or copyrighted materials to collect highly sensitive data on a vulnerable population, the data, as well as most study measures, are not publicly available. This study was not preregistered.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Keira C. Stockdale, Department of Psychology and Health Studies, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan, Canada.

Mark E. Olver, Department of Psychology and Health Studies, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan, Canada.

Kristine M. Lovatt, Correctional Service of Canada, Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada.

References

Althouse

A. D.

(2016). Adjust for multiple comparisons? It’s not that simple. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 101(5), 1644–1645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.11.024

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018362

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

Wormith

J. S.

(2001). Level of service inventory – Saskatchewan youth edition. Multi-Health Systems.

Beggs

S. M.

Grace

R. C.

(2008). Psychopathy, intelligence, and recidivism in child molesters: Evidence of an interaction effect. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(6), 683–695. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808314786

Bonta

Andrews

D. A.

(2024). The psychology of conduct (7th ed.). Routledge.

Bonta

Blais

Wilson

H. A.

(2014). A theoretically informed meta-analysis of the risk for general and violent recidivism for mentally disordered offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(3), 278–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.04.014

Boulesteix

A. L.

Hoffmann

(2024). To adjust or not to adjust: It is not the tests performed that count, but how they are reported and interpreted. BMJ Medicine, 12(1), Article e000783. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjmed-2023-000783

Bozick

Steele

Davis

Turner

(2018). Does providing inmates with education improve post-release outcomes? A meta-analysis of correctional education programs in the United States. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 14(3), 389–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-018-9334-6

Bryan

Freer

Furlong

(2007). Language and communication difficulties in juvenile offenders. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 42(5), 505–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/13682820601053977

10.

Chappell

C. A.

(2003). Post-secondary correctional education and recidivism: A meta-analysis of research conducted 1990-1999. Unpublished dissertation, University of Cincinnati.

11.

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

12.

Cottle

C. C.

Lee

R. J.

Heilbrun

(2001). The prediction of criminal recidivism in juveniles: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(3), 367–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854801028003005

13.

DeLisi

Vaughn

Beaver

K. M.

Wexler

Barth

A. E.

Fletcher

J. M.

(2011). Fledgling psychopathy in the classroom: ADHD subtypes, psychopathy, and reading comprehension in a community sample of adolescents. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 9(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204010371932

14.

Dettori

Norvell

Chapman

(2018). The sin of missing data: Is all forgiven by way of imputation? Global Spine Journal, 8(8), 892–894. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568218811922

15.

Fine

Simmons

Miltimore

Steinberg

Frick

P. J.

Cauffman

(2018). The school experiences of male adolescent offenders: Implications for academic performance and recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 64(10), 1326–1350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717750392

16.

Forth

A. E.

Kosson

D. S.

Hare

R. D.

(2003). Psychopathy checklist: Youth version (PCL: YV). Multi-Health Systems.

17.

Grigorenko

E. L.

(2006). Learning disabilities in juvenile offenders. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 15(2), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2005.11.001

18.

Hanson

R. K.

(2022). Prediction statistics for psychological assessment. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000275-000

19.

Herpers

P. C. M.

Scheepers

F. E.

Bons

D. M. A.

Buitelaar

J. K.

Rommelse

N. N. J.

(2014). The cognitive and neural correlates of psychopathy and especially callous–unemotional traits in youths: A systematic review of the evidence. Development and Psychopathology, 26(1), 245–273. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579413000527

20.

Hoge

R. D.

Andrews

D. A.

(2003). Youth level of service/case management inventory (YLS/CMI) user’s manual. Multi-Health Systems.

21.

Kaufman

A. S.

Kaufman

N. L.

(1990). K-BIT: Kaufman brief intelligence test. American Guidance Service.

22.

King

(2018). Effectiveness of post-secondary education and vocational training on offender rehabilitation and re-entry: A meta-analysis. Unpublished dissertation, Northcentral University.

23.

Lankester

Coles

Trotter

Scott

Dickson

Wickersham

(2025). The association between academic achievement and subsequent youth offending: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 10(4), 477–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-025-00266-9

24.

Lansing

A. E.

Washburn

J. J.

Abram

K. M.

Thomas

U. C.

Welty

L. J.

Teplin

L. A.

(2014). Cognitive and academic functioning of juvenile detainees: Implications for correctional populations and public health. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 20(1), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078345813505450

25.

Lipsey

M. W.

(2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4(2), 124–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880802612573

26.

Mathews

Ward

Hodge

Altimira-Celemin

(2025). Cognitive profile and prevalence of risk factors amongst youth offenders in a New Zealand prison. Journal of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists, 35(1), 146–159. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16744109

27.

Moffitt

T. E.

Caspi

(2001). Childhood predictors differentiate life-course persistent and adolescent limited antisocial pathways among males and females. Development and Psychopathology, 13(2), 355–375. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579401002097

28.

Neumann

C. S.

Kosson

D. S.

Forth

A. E.

Hare

R. D.

(2006). Factor structure of the hare psychopathy checklist: Youth version (PCL: YV) in incarcerated adolescents. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.142

29.

Nkoana

Williams

Steenkamp

Clasby

Knowler

Schrieff

(2020). Understanding the educational needs of young offenders: A prevalence study of traumatic brain injury and learning disabilities. International Journal of Educational Development, 78, Article 102261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102261

30.

Olver

M. E.

Stockdale

K. C.

Wormith

J. S.

(2014). Thirty years of research on the level of service scales: A meta-analytic examination of predictive accuracy and sources of variability. Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 156–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035080

31.

Olver

M. E.

Stockdale

K. C.

Wormith

J. S.

(2009). Risk assessment with young offenders: A meta-analysis of three assessment measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(4), 329–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809331457

32.

Rice

M. E.

Harris

G. T.

(2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29(5), 615–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-6832-7

33.

Sánchez de Ribera

Kavish

Katz

I. M.

Boutwell

B. B.

(2019). Untangling intelligence, psychopathy, antisocial personality disorder, and conduct problems: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Personality, 33(5), 529-564. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2207

34.

Snowling

M. J.

Adams

J. W.

Bowyer-Crane

Tobin

(2000). Levels of literacy among juvenile offenders: The incidence of specific reading difficulties. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 10(4), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.362

35.

Steele

J. L.

Bozick

Davis

L. M.

(2016). Education for incarcerated juveniles: A meta-analysis. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 21(2), 65–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2015.1133308

36.

Walters

G. D.

(2024a). A change in time spent on homework as a possible turning point for youth with a history of serious delinquency: Testing the intervening influence of cognitive and moral agency. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 10(3), 327–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-024-00257-2

37.

Walters

G. D.

(2024b). Predicting future recidivism from changes in school grades and moral agency. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 51(4), 491–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241226666

38.

Wechsler

(1991). WISC-III: Wechsler intelligence scale for children (3rd ed.). Psychological Corporation.

39.

Wechsler

(1992). WIAT: Wechsler individual achievement test. Psychological Corporation.

40.

Wechsler

(1999). WASI: Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence. Psychological Corporation.

41.

Wechsler

(2001a). WIAT-II: Wechsler individual achievement test (2nd ed.). Psychological Corporation.

42.

Wechsler

(2001b). WIAT-II-AB: Wechsler individual achievement test-abbreviated. Psychological Corporation.

43.

Wechsler

(2003). WISC-IV: Wechsler intelligence scale for children (4th ed.). Psychological Corporation.

44.

Wilkinson

G. S.

(1993). WRAT3: Wide range achievement test 3: Psychological Assessment Resources.

45.

Wilkinson

G. S.

Robertson

G. J.

(2006). WRAT4: Wide range achievement test 4: Psychological Assessment Resources.

46.

Wilson

S. J.

Lipsey

M. W.

(2007). School-based interventions for aggressive and disruptive behavior. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 33(2 Suppl), S130–S143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.04.011

47.

Wong

Lewis

Stockdale

Gordon

(2004-2011). Violence risk scale-youth version (VRS-YV). University of Saskatchewan.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.28 MB

0.00 MB