ArticlePDF Available

Does Early Childhood Callous-Unemotional Behavior Uniquely Predict Behavior Problems or Callous-Unemotional Behavior in Late Childhood?

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Callous-unemotional (CU) behavior has been linked to behavior problems in children and adolescents. However, few studies have examined whether CU behavior in predicts behavior problems or CU behavior in . This study examined whether indicators of CU behavior at ages 2-4 predicted aggression, rule-breaking, and CU behavior across informants at age 9.5. To test the unique predictive and convergent validity of CU behavior in early childhood, we accounted for stability in behavior problems and method effects to rule out the possibility that rater biases inflated the magnitude of any associations found. Cross-informant data were collected from a multiethnic, high-risk sample ( 731; female = 49%) at ages 2-4 and again at age 9.5. From age 3, CU behavior uniquely predicted aggression and rule-breaking across informants. There were also unique associations between CU behavior assessed at ages 3 and 4 and CU behavior assessed at age 9.5. Findings demonstrate that early childhood indicators of CU behavior account for unique variance in later childhood behavior problems and CU behavior, taking into account stability in behavior problems over time and method effects. Convergence with a traditional measure of CU behavior in late childhood provides support for the construct validity of a brief early childhood measure of CU behavior. (PsycINFO Database Record
Content may be subject to copyright.
Developmental Psychology
Does Early Childhood Callous-Unemotional Behavior
Uniquely Predict Behavior Problems or Callous-Unemotional
Behavior in Late Childhood?
Rebecca Waller, Thomas J. Dishion, Daniel S. Shaw, Frances Gardner, Melvin N. Wilson, and Luke
W. Hyde
Online First Publication, September 5, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000165
CITATION
Waller, R., Dishion, T. J., Shaw, D. S., Gardner, F., Wilson, M. N., & Hyde, L. W. (2016, September
5). Does Early Childhood Callous-Unemotional Behavior Uniquely Predict Behavior Problems or
Callous-Unemotional Behavior in Late Childhood?. Developmental Psychology. Advance online
publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000165
Does Early Childhood Callous-Unemotional Behavior Uniquely Predict
Behavior Problems or Callous-Unemotional Behavior in Late Childhood?
Rebecca Waller
University of Michigan
Thomas J. Dishion
Arizona State University
Daniel S. Shaw
University of Pittsburgh
Frances Gardner
University of Oxford
Melvin N. Wilson
University of Virginia
Luke W. Hyde
University of Michigan
Callous-unemotional (CU) behavior has been linked to behavior problems in children and adolescents.
However, few studies have examined whether CU behavior in early childhood predicts behavior
problems or CU behavior in late childhood. This study examined whether indicators of CU behavior at
ages 2– 4 predicted aggression, rule-breaking, and CU behavior across informants at age 9.5. To test the
unique predictive and convergent validity of CU behavior in early childhood, we accounted for stability
in behavior problems and method effects to rule out the possibility that rater biases inflated the magnitude
of any associations found. Cross-informant data were collected from a multiethnic, high-risk sample
(N731; female 49%) at ages 2– 4 and again at age 9.5. From age 3, CU behavior uniquely predicted
aggression and rule-breaking across informants. There were also unique associations between CU
behavior assessed at ages 3 and 4 and CU behavior assessed at age 9.5. Findings demonstrate that early
childhood indicators of CU behavior account for unique variance in later childhood behavior problems
and CU behavior, taking into account stability in behavior problems over time and method effects.
Convergence with a traditional measure of CU behavior in late childhood provides support for the
construct validity of a brief early childhood measure of CU behavior.
Keywords: bifactor, callous-unemotional, conduct problems, measurement, prevention
Studies have demonstrated that many children and adults who
show antisocial behavior, such as violence and substance use,
exhibited behavior problems that emerged early in life from age 2
onward (e.g., Campbell, 1995; Shaw, Gilliom, Ingoldsby, &
Nagin, 2003). However, most young children with early behavior
problems naturally desist from these behaviors (Côté, Vaillan-
court, LeBlanc, Nagin, & Tremblay, 2006). Thus, the goal of
preventative efforts is to identify families of children at high risk
for early starting and stable trajectories of behavior problems,
particularly children likely to persist in such behaviors beyond the
preschool years (Dishion et al., 2008; Webster-Stratton & Taylor,
2001). The toddler years represent a focal point for preventative
efforts targeting behavior problems because they are years of rapid
transition in children’s physical and cognitive abilities that can
pose a challenge to parents in terms of responding to and managing
corresponding child behaviors (Dishion et al., 2008; Shaw &
Shelleby, 2014). Moreover, treatment research suggests that inter-
ventions implemented prior to school age, when behavior is po-
tentially more malleable, are particularly efficacious (Dishion &
Patterson, 1992; Reid, Webster-Stratton, & Baydar, 2004). How-
ever, across developmental stages, behavior problems are hetero-
geneous in etiology and persistence, posing challenges for how
best to personalize treatment components (Frick & Morris, 2004).
CU Behavior
One approach to identify children at risk for persistent behavior
problems has focused on the presence of Callous-unemotional (CU)
behavior (Frick, Ray, Thornton, & Kahn, 2014). CU behavior consists
of low levels of empathy and guilt, and uncaring toward others (Frick
Rebecca Waller, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan;
Thomas J. Dishion, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University;
Daniel S. Shaw, Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh; Frances
Gardner, Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford;
Melvin N. Wilson, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia; Luke
W. Hyde, Department of Psychology, Center for Human Growth and Devel-
opment, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Some findings reported in full here were presented at the Society for
Research in Child Development (SRCD) in Philadelphia, PA, in March
2015. This research was supported by Grants 5R01 DA16110 and 5R01
DA16110-02 from the National Institutes of Health, awarded to Thomas J.
Dishion, Daniel S. Shaw, Melvin N. Wilson, and Frances Gardner. We
thank families and staff of the Early Steps Multisite Study.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Luke W.
Hyde, Department of Psychology, 530 Church Street, University of Mich-
igan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. E-mail: lukehyde@umich.edu
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Developmental Psychology © 2016 American Psychological Association
2016, Vol. 52, No. 9, 000 0012-1649/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000165
1
& Morris, 2004), and predicts the development of severe behavior
problems, particularly during late childhood and adolescence (Frick et
al., 2014). Thus, assessing early childhood behaviors that tap the CU
behavior construct may identify those children likely to persist in their
behavior problems and could help to inform the creation of special-
ized treatment components (Waller, Gardner, & Hyde, 2013; Waller,
Shaw, et al., 2015). Previous studies examining the predictive validity
of CU behavior have typically focused on samples assessed in late
childhood or adolescence. However, recent studies have suggested
that CU behavior in the toddler and preschool years also predicts later
behavior problems. In the first study to examine CU behavior in
preschoolers, Kimonis and colleagues (2006) found that CU behavior
predicted teacher-reported proactive aggression 9 –12 months later in
a sample of 2–5 year olds (Kimonis et al., 2006). However, initial
aggression was not included in models, making it difficult to know
whether CU behavior was simply indexing children with more severe
existing behavior problems.
Does Early CU Behavior at Ages 2– 4 Uniquely Predict
Behavior Problems at Age 9.5?
More recent studies have controlled for stability of behavior prob-
lems, demonstrating that early childhood CU behavior uniquely pre-
dicts increases in behavior problems over time. For example, CU
behavior predicted increases in behavior problems one year later
among a large, community sample of children aged 4 –9 years old
(Dadds, Fraser, Frost, & Hawes, 2005). In addition, two separate
studies that used the same “brief-adapted” five-item parent-reported
measure found that CU behavior at age 3 predicted later high, stable
trajectories of teacher-reported aggression from ages 6 –12 years old
(Willoughby, Mills-Koonce, Gottfredson, & Wagner, 2014) and
teacher-reported externalizing behavior at age 6 (Waller, Hyde, Gra-
bell, Alves, & Olson, 2015). Moreover, this five-item measure of
early CU behavior was related to important criterion variables, in-
cluding low empathy and moral regulation (Waller, Hyde, et al.,
2015) and was preceded by lower temperamental fear and distress
during infancy (Willoughby, Waschbusch, Moore, & Propper, 2011).
Taken together, these studies demonstrate the separability of CU
behavior from other dimensions of early behavior problem during
early childhood and the value of CU behavior for predicting future
externalizing behaviors. However, with the exception of the efforts of
Willoughby and colleagues (2014), no previous studies initiated dur-
ing early childhood have examined the predictive validity of CU
behavior with follow-up periods exceeding three years. Moreover,
previous studies suggest that CU behavior may be more strongly
related to covert forms of antisocial behavior and proactive forms of
aggression (Kimonis et al., 2006; Waller, Hyde, et al., 2015; Waller,
Wright, et al., 2015), although differential prediction of a covert/overt
distinction in behavior problems has yet to be tested across the early
to late childhood period.
The first goal of the current study was thus to examine whether an
early childhood measure of CU behavior predicted behavior problems
in the late childhood period. In doing so, a brief-adapted measure of
CU behavior was used that had previously been validated in the
current sample at ages 2– 4 (Hyde et al., 2013). The measure was
termed deceitful-callous (DC) behavior because parent-reported items
tapping both callousness (e.g., “doesn’t seem guilty after misbehav-
ing”) and deceitfulness (e.g., “lies,” and “sneaky”) loaded together in
exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. At age 3, this measure
of DC behavior robustly predicted stable, high trajectories of child
behavior problems using latent growth curve modeling from ages
2– 4, both within and across informants (Hyde et al., 2013). However,
we have yet to test whether DC behavior predicts behavior problems
in late childhood over and above the stability of behavior problems.
To explore a potential overt/covert distinction in later behavior prob-
lems, we examined aggression and rule-breaking as somewhat sepa-
rable outcomes of behavior problems, while controlling for earlier
behavior problems.
Does Early Childhood CU Behavior Uniquely Predict
Late Childhood CU Behavior?
Beyond the question of whether DC behavior adds variance in
the prediction of later behavior problems, a second question cen-
ters on construct validity. CU behavior has been shown to exhibit
moderate stability within middle-late childhood (Obradovi´
c, Pardini,
Long, & Loeber, 2007) and during the preschool years (Hyde et al.,
2013; Willoughby et al., 2011). However, no studies have tested
whether brief-adapted CU behavior measures in early childhood are
uniquely related to CU behavior assessed in late childhood via what
are considered “gold standard” or purpose-developed measures. The
24-item Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (ICU; Frick, 2004)
is a widely used measure that provides a full assessment of the
affective deficits linked to CU behavior. The ICU exhibits a three-
factor bifactor (3FBF) structure, with items simultaneously loading
onto three “specific” factors (callous, uncaring, and unemotional)
and a “general” CU behavior factor. Psychometric support for the
3FBF model has been demonstrated in the current sample at age
9.5 (Waller, Wright, et al., 2015) and other samples assessed
during adolescence (Essau, Sasagawa, & Frick, 2006).
However, no studies have examined whether early childhood CU
behavior is related to the specific (uncaring, callous, and unemotional)
or general CU behavior factors of the ICU within a bifactor frame-
work. Moreover, studies have yet to examine the convergence of CU
behavior measures in early versus late childhood, taking into account
overlap with behavior problems. As no prior studies have examined
links between early childhood CU behavior measures and the 3FBF
model of the ICU, we considered analyses to be exploratory. Never-
theless, we hypothesized that higher DC behavior scores in early
childhood would be uniquely related to higher scores on the general
factor of the 3FBF ICU model given that both measures were derived
to assess the same underlying and general construct capturing vari-
ance in callousness and uncaring for others. Finally, a valid concern
about our DC behavior measure, or indeed of other brief measures of
CU behavior, is that they are simply an index of severe behavior
problems, which would explain any prediction of later behavior
problems or convergence with later CU behavior measures. To alle-
viate this concern, and isolate specificity or unique convergence of
measures of CU behavior over time, we examined cross-lagged mod-
els that accounted for overlap with behavior problems in both early
and late childhood.
Does Early CU Behavior Predict Late Childhood
Outcomes Accounting for Method Effects?
Despite the methodological rigor of controlling for earlier behavior
problems, a lingering concern surrounding any predictive or construct
validity of CU behavior measures centers on rater biases. In particular,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
2WALLER, DISHION, SHAW, GARDNER, WILSON, AND HYDE
no parent-reported behavior scales represent wholly objective mea-
sures of behavioral constructs, but reflect instead, to a greater or lesser
extent, inherent biases derived from the parent’s perceptions of the
child and their own personal memories, values, or mental states. One
component of a parent’s behavior ratings is their tendency to report
negative child attributes. It seems particularly pertinent to consider the
meaning of ratings when parents endorse their young child for be-
haviors central to the CU construct, including lying, sneakiness, lack
of empathy, or reduced guilt. That is, are parents actually reporting on
the emergence of “callousness” or do ratings reflect parents’ own
negative biases or attributions about the child? Concerns about
method effects highlight the need for studies that parse out parents’
ratings of children’s externalizing behavior and a tendency to rate the
child negatively from variance that specifically taps the underlying
CU behavior construct.
A separate and large body of literature has highlighted limitations
of behavior rating scales and the need to account for method variance
(e.g., Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Pod-
sakoff, 2003). Studies have examined multimethod, multitrait
(MMMT) models that use multiple “methods” (i.e., different infor-
mants/assessment methods) to obtain data on “traits” (i.e., underlying
constructs the measure intends to assess; Marsh & Grayson, 1995).
MMMT models represent a novel approach to test whether early
childhood CU behavior predicts behavior problems or CU behavior in
late childhood over and above earlier behavior problems and taking
into account parent perceptions. That is, use of an MMMT frame-
work allows for the comparison of the predictive effects of
variance in informant perceptions (“method”) versus effects of
the unique variance in the underlying CU behavior and behavior
problems constructs in early childhood (“trait”; Figure 1). Spe-
cifically, we sought to examine the effects of a method factor
capturing informant type (hereafter referred to as the “infor-
mant” factor). Latent informant factors capture variance in the
ratings provided by two or more informants for all items across
the measures of both CU behavior and general behavior prob-
lems. The predictive effect of variance in informant perceptions
can then be compared to trait factors derived as latent factors
capturing variance within all CU behavior items, but across
both informants, and within all behavior problems items, but
across informant perceptions (see Figure 1). This modeling
approach facilitates an important and testable prediction: if the
predictive capability reported for CU behavior measures is
driven by negative or positive informant perceptions that have
not typically been accounted for in studies, then an informant
factor, but not a CU behavior trait factor, would uniquely
predict later rule-breaking, aggressive, and CU behaviors.
Does Age of Prediction Matter?
Beyond questions centered on validity, a final question relates to
the age at which measures of CU behavior are helpful as predictors
of later outcomes. Across recent studies in early childhood includ-
Figure 1. Multitrait multimethod model examining whether early callous unemotional (CU) behavior
(deceitful-callousness) and behavior problem trait factors at ages 2, 3, and 4 versus primary and alternative
caregiver reported informant factors at ages 2, 3, and 4 uniquely predict outcomes at age 9.5 Note. Item level
indicators not shown (for ease of readability): five deceitful-callous behavior items based on Hyde et al. (2013),
and 35 behavior problems items (Eyberg Scale; Robinson et al., 1980). Prediction by measures assessed at ages
2, 3, and 4 tested in separate models. Within-time correlation between CU behavior and behavior problems
factors specified to account for their overlap. We reran models controlling for treatment status, project location,
child gender, race, and ethnicity, family income, and parent education and age—findings unchanged.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
3
VALIDITY OF EARLY CALLOUS-UNEMOTIONAL BEHAVIOR
ing several separate samples, studies appear to have settled on
testing the predictive validity of preschool CU behavior from age
3without formal examination of potential age effects (e.g., Hyde
et al., 2013; Waller, Hyde, et al., 2015; Willoughby et al., 2014).
We have previously hypothesized that it may be developmentally
inappropriate to assess CU behavior as young as age 2 because
individual differences in the socioemotional capabilities that CU
behavior indexes (i.e., empathy, prosociality) are only just emerg-
ing (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1990; Fehr, Bernhard, & Rockenbach,
2008). Moreover, a previous study in this sample found the inter-
nal validity of DC behavior to be lower at age 2 compared with
ages 3 and 4 suggesting that at age 2, items were not tapping a
coherent construct with developmental validity (i.e., ␣⫽.57 at age
2 vs. ␣⫽.64 at age 3; Hyde et al., 2013). However, no studies
have systematically compared the differential predictive validity of
CU behavior assessed in the toddler period (i.e., age 2) versus CU
behavior in the early preschool years (i.e., ages 3 or 4), which is
important for improving our knowledge about when we can reli-
ably and validly assess the underlying construct of CU behavior in
very young children and for knowing when to target or tailor early
starting prevention efforts. Therefore in a final study goal, we
sought to evaluate whether there was differential prediction of
behavior problems and CU behavior in late childhood by DC
behavior assessed at different ages during early childhood, con-
trasting prediction by DC behavior at ages 2 versus 3 and 4.
Current Study
Our overarching study goal was thus to examine both the
predictive and construct validity of DC behavior at ages 2– 4. We
hypothesized that DC behavior would predict aggressive and rule-
breaking behavior across informants (teacher and primary and
alternative caregiver reports), over and above a problem behavior
factor and controlling for informant factors indexing method ef-
fects within an MMMT framework (see Figure 1). Second, we
hypothesized that there would be unique associations between DC
behavior in early childhood and a general CU behavior factor at
age 9.5, over and above earlier behavior problems (Figure 2), and
controlling for concurrent externalizing behavior and informant
method effects. Finally, we hypothesized that CU behavior would
show predictive and construct validity at ages 3 and 4 but not at
age 2, because CU behaviors are unlikely to be fully formed at age
2 and thus the measurement of these behaviors would be less
predictive of later outcomes.
Method
Participants
Participants included 731 mother-child dyads recruited between
2002 and 2003 from Women, Infants, and Children Nutritional
Supplement Program programs in the metropolitan areas of Pitts-
burgh, PA, and Eugene, OR, and in and outside of Charlottesville,
VA (Dishion et al., 2008). Participants were recruited to be part of
a randomized controlled trial of the Family Check-Up, a preven-
tive intervention for use in high-risk environments to address
normative challenges facing parents from toddlerhood onward
(Dishion et al., 2008). Families were invited to participate if they
had a son or daughter between age 2 years, 0 months and 2 years,
Figure 2. Model showing hypothesized links between deceitful-callous behavior at ages 2, 3, or 4 predicting the
three-factor bifactor model of the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (ICU) at age 9.5, controlling for earlier
behavior problems Note. Bifactor model based on Waller, Wright, et al. (2015). Double-headed arrows show
within-time correlation between deceitful-callous behavior and behavior problems. Single-headed arrows show
regression paths that tested unique association between deceitful-callous behavior and behavior problems at ages 2– 4
and ICU factors at age 9.5. For computational ease, we estimated effects using extracted bifactor scores but the pattern
of findings was similar when run within a bifactor framework. We ran separate models for prediction at ages 2, 3, and
4 to examine developmental differences. We reran models controlling for treatment status, project location, child
gender, race, and ethnicity, family income, and parent education and age—findings unchanged.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
4WALLER, DISHION, SHAW, GARDNER, WILSON, AND HYDE
11 months. Recruitment criteria were defined as 1 SD above
normative means or established clinical cut points on screening
measures in at least two of the following three domains: (a) child
behavior problems (conduct or high-conflict relationships with
adults), (b) primary caregiver problems (maternal depression, daily
parenting stress, self-reported substance use), and (c) sociodemo-
graphic risk (low education or low family income; Dishion et al.,
2008). Thus, children in the study were selected as “high risk”
based on established risk factors for behavior problems. At the
same time, because the sample was a community (vs. clinic)
sample, and not all children met inclusion criteria based on clin-
ically meaningful frequencies of conduct problems, the sample
contained wide variability in early disruptive behavior.
Of the 1,666 families with children of the appropriate age and
who were contacted across study sites, 879 met the eligibility
requirements (52% in Pittsburgh, 57% in Eugene, and 49% in
Charlottesville), and 731 (83.2%) consented to participate. Chil-
dren in the sample had a mean age of 29.9 months (SD 3.2) at
the age 2 assessment (2.5 years old). Across sites, primary
caregivers self-identified as belonging to the following racial
groups: 28% African American, 50% European American, 13%
biracial, and 9% other groups. Thirteen percent also self-identified
as belonging to a Hispanic ethnic group. During screening, more
than 66% of enrolled families had an annual income $20,000.
Forty-one percent of the sample had a high school/general educa-
tion diploma, and 32% had 1–2 years of posthigh school training.
Following baseline assessments, half the sample was randomly
assigned to receive the Family Check-Up intervention (Dishion et
al., 2008). Although intervention effects have been examined by
previous studies in this sample (Dishion et al., 2008; Hyde et al.,
2013), our focus was on basic developmental processes. Thus,
intervention effectiveness was not a major focus of the current
study and was only included as a covariate in all analyses.
Procedures
Annual assessments were conducted from ages 2–10.5 (with the
exception of age 6) at the family home. Assessments lasted approx-
imately 2–3 hr and included questionnaires, interviews, assessor im-
pressions, and videotaped observations. Beginning when children
were age 7.5, we also collected data from teachers. The current study
used questionnaire data collected separately from primary and alter-
native caregivers at ages 2– 4 and 9.5 and from teachers at age 9.5. At
age 2, primary caregivers were typically biological mothers (96%)
and alternative caregivers were most commonly biological fathers
(29%), grandmothers (13%), aunts (3%), or a female friend of the
mother (2%). This informant pattern was similar at ages 3 and 4. At
age 9.5, primary caregivers were still most likely biological mothers
(73%). Alternative caregivers were biological fathers (24%), a step-
father or male partner of mothers (16%), grandmothers (6%), or aunts
(3%). Families (i.e., primary caregivers) were reimbursed $100 for
participation at age 2, $120 at age 3, $140 at age 4, and $200 at age
9.5. Alternative caregivers were reimbursed $20 for participation at
ages 2– 4 and $40 at age 9.5.
Of 731 families who initially participated, 659 (90%) partici-
pated at age 3 and 620 (85%) at age 4. At ages 3 and 4, selective
attrition analyses revealed no significant differences in project site,
or children’s behavior problems, race, ethnicity, and gender (Dish-
ion et al., 2008). At age 9.5, primary caregiver-reported data were
available for 586 (80%), alternative caregiver reports for 426
(58%), and teacher reports for 385 (53%). Selective attrition anal-
yses using chi square- and t-tests suggested no significant differ-
ences in families for whom data were available by intervention
status, family income, children’s race or gender, or initial level of
conduct problems (ps.20). However, parents of children for
whom we did not have data available at age 9.5 had significantly
lower education (p.001). Thus, parental education was exam-
ined as a covariate in all models.
Measures
Demographics questionnaire— covariates. Primary caregivers
completed a demographics questionnaire at age 2 (Dishion et al.,
2008). Consistent with past studies in this sample, primary caregiver
education was coded as “less than high school” 0 and “high
school/beyond” 1. Gross annual family income was coded as
$14,999 0 and $15,000 1. Child gender was coded as
female 0 and male 1. Child’s race was coded as “Caucasian/
other” 0 and “Black African-American/biracial” 1. Ethnicity was
coded as “non-Hispanic” 0 and “Hispanic” 1. Finally, as data
were collected from multiple sites, which differed with respect to the
urbanicity and ethnic/racial composition of participants, location was
included as a covariate to account for potential differences. Cutpoints
were designed to represent meaningful differences between groups
within our relatively high-risk sample. For example, the cutpoint of
$14,999 a year includes families who were 25% or more below the
poverty line for a family of four in the year the data was collected.
Although reported results use these cutpoints to be consistent with
previous work in this sample, the pattern of findings was unchanged
when we included the full scale quasi-continuous variables of parent
education and family income.
Early Childhood Measures
DC behavior (primary and alternative caregiver-reported;
ages, 2, 3, and 4). We assessed CU behavior in early childhood
using a brief adapted measure of DC behavior derived and vali-
dated in a previous study (Hyde et al., 2013). The measure includes
items from the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach &
Rescorla, 2000), Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI; Robin-
son, Eyberg, & Ross, 1980) and Adult-Child Relationship Scale
(ACRS; Pianta, 2001). Items were chosen if they reflected lack of
guilt, lack of affective behavior, deceitfulness, or were similar to
ICU items (Frick, 2004). In our earlier study, we constructed this
factor using exploratory factor analysis on half the sample and
confirmatory factor analysis on the other half. Five items loaded
onto a factor, which was termed DC behavior to reflect the item
content containing items indexing callousness and deceitful behav-
ior: “child doesn’t seem guilty after misbehaving” (CBCL, 0 –2
scale; 0 not true,1somewhat true;2very true), “punish-
ment doesn’t change behavior” (CBCL), “child is selfish/won’t
share” (CBCL), “child lies” (Eyberg 1–7 scale; 1 never;4
seldom;7always), and “child is sneaky/tries to get around me”
(ACRS, 1–5 scale: 1 definitely note;3not sure;5
definitely; Hyde et al., 2013). The measure demonstrated poor
internal consistency at age 2 (␣⫽.57), which improved at ages 3
(␣⫽.64) and 4 (␣⫽.73). Internal consistencies are comparable
with CU behavior measures in older samples of children (Frick et
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
5
VALIDITY OF EARLY CALLOUS-UNEMOTIONAL BEHAVIOR
al., 2014) and in other preschool samples (Willoughby et al.,
2011).
Behavior problems (primary and alternative caregiver-
reported; ages, 2, 3, and 4). Behavior problems were assessed at
ages 2– 4 via the ECBI (Robinson et al., 1980), a 36-item behavior
checklist. The ECBI assesses behavior problems in children between
2 and 16 years of age via two factors, one that focuses on the
perceived intensity of behaviors, and another that identifies the degree
to which the behavior is a problem for caregivers. The current study
used the intensity factor,
1
which is an index of the frequencies of early
conduct problems (vs. parents’ perceptions of the behavior being
problematic). Primary and alternative caregivers rated items on a
7-point Likert scale (e.g., 1 never;4sometimes;7always),
providing an index of the intensity of problem behaviors (e.g., “tem-
per tantrums,” “physically fights,” and “destroys toys and other ob-
jects”). One item that was used in the DC behavior measure (“lies”)
was removed to avoid content overlap. There was acceptable internal
consistency of both scales from ages 2 to 4 (␣⫽.86--.94) (Dishion et
al., 2008). We specifically chose to use the ECBI since it overlapped
less with the DC behavior factor in item content than the CBCL and
because it was the measure that was originally used to screen children
into this study.
Late Childhood Behavior Problems (Age 9.5)
Aggressive and rule-breaking behavior (primary caregiver,
alternative caregiver, and teacher reports; age 9.5). Primary
and alternative caregivers completed the CBCL (Achenbach &
Rescorla, 2000) and teachers completed the Teacher Report Form
of the Child Behavior Checklist (TRF; Achenbach, 1991). Both
questionnaires include an externalizing (33 items for the CBCL
and 34 for the TRF) behavior scale, comprising two subscales of
aggressive behavior (e.g., defiant, talks back) and rule-breaking
(e.g., steals). Separate models were examined for aggressive ver-
sus rule-breaking subscales. Thus, we could test whether CU
behavior versus behavior problems trait factors showed differential
associations with these overlapping but separable components of
the broader externalizing construct. However, for our third study
goal of examining specificity in the prediction of ICU scores, we
included the broadband externalizing scale (rather than separate
aggressive and rule-breaking subscales) in cross-lagged models to
test potential unique links between early versus late childhood CU
behavior. High internal consistencies were found for primary care-
giver, alternative caregiver, and teacher reports of externalizing
behavior at age 9.5 (range, ␣⫽.93 – .95).
CU behavior (primary caregiver and alternative caregiver;
age 9.5). We assessed CU behavior in late childhood via primary
and alternative caregiver reports on the ICU (Frick, 2004) (e.g., “does
not show emotions,” “feels guilty after wrongdoing”). Items are rated
on a 4-point scale (0 not true;1somewhat true;2very true;
3definitely true). We used a general CU behavior and specific
uncaring, callous, and unemotional factors at age 9.5 for both primary
and alternative caregiver reports, based on a 3FBF structure that was
validated in a previous study in this sample (Waller, Wright, et al.,
2015). Unfortunately, we did not collect teacher- or youth-reported
versions of the ICU. High internal consistencies were found for total
ICU general factor (␣⫽.87) and specific callous (␣⫽.78) and
uncaring (␣⫽.81) scores, and acceptable internal consistency for the
specific unemotional score (␣⫽.65).
Analytic Strategy
Models using item-level data were computed using weighted
least squares means variance estimation (WLSMV) in Mplus 7.2
(Muthén & Muthén, 1998 –2014) to take into account the ordinal
nature of items (Flora & Curran, 2004). WLSMV estimation
accounts for missing data in four steps that include two steps using
maximum likelihood estimation, which has been shown to be more
efficient than listwise deletion and produces unbiased results with
up to 50% missing at random (Enders & Bandalos, 2001). For
models using summed or extracted factor scores, we used full
information maximum likelihood estimation. We recomputed
analyses including intervention group, child gender, ethnicity, and
race, primary caregiver education and age, and family income to
check whether accounting for the effects of these demographic
covariates influenced findings. Models included all participants
except if they were missing on individual covariates (n723–
731) or if they were missing all items for the entire behavior
problems or DC behavior measures (n679713).
Aim 1: Does DC Behavior at Ages 2– 4 Uniquely
Predict Behavior Problems at Age 9.5?
We computed zero-order correlations between DC behavior and
behavior problems scores at ages 2– 4 and aggressive and rule-
breaking behavior at age 9.5. We next examined MMMT models,
specifying items from across primary and alternative caregiver
reports of DC behavior (5 items each; 10 in total) and behavior
problems (35 items each; 70 in total) to load onto two trait factors,
while simultaneously specifying all primary caregiver-reported (i.e.,
across DC behavior and behavior problem items) and alternative
caregiver-reported items (i.e., across DC behavior and behavior prob-
lem items) to load onto two separate informant factors. We tested
whether trait versus informant factors uniquely predicted aggressive
or rule-breaking behavior across primary caregiver, alternative care-
giver, and teacher reports at 9.5 (see Figure 1).
Aim 2: Does Early Childhood DC Behavior Uniquely
Predict Late Childhood CU Behavior?
We computed zero-order correlations between DC behavior at
ages 2– 4 and extracted ICU general CU behavior and three spe-
cific factor scores at age 9.5 modeled using the bifactor framework
validated in an earlier study.
2
We next used multiple regression
models to examine whether there were unique links between DC
behavior and ICU extracted bifactor scores, controlling for earlier
behavior problems. We examined separate within-informant (pri-
mary vs. alternative caregiver reports) and across-informant mod-
1
Note that when we recomputed models using the Eyberg Problem
factor, which identifies a count of how many problem behaviors are
actually considered problematic by the parent, instead of the Intensity
factor, the pattern of findings was similar but the effect of deceitful-callous
(DC) behavior on late childhood outcomes was stronger. Thus, we present
findings using the Intensity factor as a more conservative test of the
predictive validity of DC behavior.
2
For computational and interpretation ease we used extracted factor
scores based on modeling in Waller, Wright, et al. (2015) because models
including both a bifactor and multimethod multitrait approach contained
too many parameters to be calculated in a sample of this size.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
6WALLER, DISHION, SHAW, GARDNER, WILSON, AND HYDE
els (see Figure 2). In a final test of the convergence between DC
behavior and ICU factor scores, we reran MMMT models, and
included extracted general CU behavior factor scores and concur-
rent externalizing behavior at age 9.5 within a cross-lagged frame-
work. Thus, we accounted for behavior problems severity in early
and late childhood and tested whether DC behavior still uniquely
predicted later CU behavior.
Aim 3: Does Age of Prediction Matter?
Across all analyses, we examined separate models for predictor
variables assessed at ages 2, 3, or 4 to test developmental speci-
ficity. We present results for ages 2 and 3 in the tables. For brevity,
we only discuss in the text any differences in the results for ages
2 versus 3 to address the goal of examining developmental spec-
ificity. We only present and discuss results for models testing ages
2 and 3 predictors, as results were highly similar for DC behavior
at ages 3 versus 4.
Results
Aim 1: Does DC Behavior at Ages 2– 4 Uniquely
Predict Behavior Problems at Age 9.5?
Descriptive statistics for study variables are presented in
Table 1. There were modest-moderate zero-order correlations be-
tween DC behavior at age 3 and primary and alternative caregiver
reports of rule-breaking and aggressive behavior at age 9.5 within
and across informant (range, r.16 .31, p.01; Table 2).
These correlations suggested that DC behavior was related to
behavior problems in late childhood. However, zero-order corre-
lations between DC behavior at age 3 and teacher-reported out-
comes at age 9.5 were not significant. Next, we examined MMMT
models that included both trait (DC behavior vs. behavior prob-
lem) and informant (primary vs. alternative caregiver reports)
factors as predictors of outcomes at age 9.5 across informants and
settings (Tables 3 and 4; Figure 1). At age 3, we found that the DC
behavior trait factor uniquely predicted primary and alternative
caregiver-reported rule-breaking and aggression, controlling for
problem behavior and method factors (Table 4).
3
However, we
also found robust effects of age 3 informant factors on outcomes
both within and across informant. Specifically, within informant,
primary and alternative caregiver method factors uniquely pre-
dicted both aggression and rule-breaking at 9.5. There were no
significant effects of age 3 trait or informant factors on teacher-
reported outcomes at 9.5, with the exception of the alternative
caregiver method factor predicting lower teacher-reported rule-
breaking. However, given that the zero order correlations between
both caregivers reports and later teacher reports approached zero,
the multivariate negative prediction is likely spurious.
Aim 2: Does Early Childhood DC Behavior Uniquely
Predict Late Childhood CU Behavior?
There were modest-moderate zero-order correlations between
DC behavior at age 3 and general CU behavior factor scores at age
9.5 within and across informant (range, r.20.24, p.01),
suggesting convergence of these measures over time. In multiple
regression models, we examined unique associations between
early childhood DC behavior and general versus specific ICU
factors, controlling for earlier behavior problems (see Figure 2). At
age 3, both primary and alternative caregiver reports of DC be-
havior uniquely predicted general CU behavior scores over and
above behavior problems (Table 5). Consistent with zero-order
associations, primary caregiver reports of behavior problems at
ages 2– 4 uniquely predicted specific callous scores. As a final test
of construct validity, we examined convergence between the DC
behavior measure with CU behavior in late childhood, controlling
for earlier and concurrent behavior problems and informant fac-
tors. This cross-lagged approach and inclusion of informant factors
meant that we isolated unique convergence in links between the
DC behavior and CU behavior measures over time and ruled out
the possibility that effects in previous models were driven by
severity. In support of this hypothesis, the DC behavior factor at
age 3 was uniquely related to CU behavior at age 9.5 across
primary and alternative caregiver reports, and over and above
informant factors and both earlier and concurrent behavior prob-
lems (Figure 3).
Aim 3: Does Age of Prediction Matter?
Compared to the zero-order correlations for DC behavior at age
2, zero-order correlations between DC behavior at age 3 and
primary and alternative caregiver reports of rule-breaking and
aggressive behavior at age 9.5 were larger in magnitude, con-
firmed quantitatively using Fisher’s r-to-ztransformations (Table
2; age 4 results similar and not presented for brevity). In MMMT
models, the DC behavior factor at age 2 predicted primary
caregiver-reported aggression and rule-breaking at age 9.5, as well
as alternative caregiver-reported aggression (trend level), over and
above the behavior problem trait factor and method factors. How-
ever, the most consistent predictive effects at age 2 were for the
informant factors, with particularly robust within-informant ef-
fects. Moreover, at age 2 (but not age 3), both primary and
alternative caregiver informant factors also predicted aggression
and rule-breaking across informant. Further, the age 2 primary
caregiver informant factor predicted teacher-reported aggression.
Finally, the magnitude of the association between DC behavior and
behavior problems at age 2 with general CU behavior factor scores
at age 9.5 was similar. In contrast, by age 3, DC behavior was
uniquely related to later CU behavior, with nonsignificant associ-
ations between age 3 behavior problems and later CU behavior
(Table 3). Thus, at ages 3 and 4, the DC behavior factor showed
consistent unique prediction of later aggression and rule-breaking,
and convergence with a fuller measure of CU behavior. In contrast,
at age 2, significant effects were distributed across the DC behav-
ior and behavior problem trait factors, and were most consistent for
informant factors, suggesting lower validity in the underlying DC
behavior construct at this earlier age (Table 5).
3
We ran models controlling for intervention group, project location,
child gender, ethnicity and race, family income, and parent education and
age. Boys were reported as having higher aggressive and rule-breaking
behavior across informants at age 9.5. Children whose parents had below
a high school education were reported as showing higher rule-breaking
across informants. Teachers reported African American children as having
higher aggressive and rule-breaking behavior. Primary and alternative
caregivers reported non-Hispanic children as showing lower aggression.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
7
VALIDITY OF EARLY CALLOUS-UNEMOTIONAL BEHAVIOR
Discussion
The current study examined whether an early childhood mea-
sure of CU behavior (DC behavior) predicted rule-breaking, ag-
gressive, and CU behaviors in late childhood. First, we demon-
strated unique effects of DC behavior at ages 3 and 4 on aggression
and rule-breaking at age 9.5 within and across primary and alter-
native caregiver reports, parsing overlap with early behavior prob-
lems, and within a MMMT framework that accounted for infor-
mant method effects. Second, we found that DC behavior uniquely
predicted general CU behavior at age 9.5 assessed using a gold-
standard CU behavior measure. Moreover, cross-lagged models
demonstrated unique convergence within and across informants in
associations between early childhood DC behavior and late child-
hood CU behavior, controlling for earlier and concurrent behavior
problems, as well as informant factors. Early behavior problems,
but not DC behavior, uniquely predicted specific callous scores,
after accounting for variance in general CU behavior. Finally, we
found evidence to suggest that the predictive and construct validity
of DC behavior is stronger from age 3 onward. We focus our
discussion on each of these findings.
DC Behavior at Ages 2– 4 Uniquely Predicts Behavior
Problems at Age 9.5
There was robust prediction of aggression and rule-breaking by
DC behavior at ages 3 and 4, consistent with recent studies that
have demonstrated that early childhood CU behavior uniquely
predicts future behavior problems (Waller, Hyde, et al., 2015;
Willoughby et al., 2014). However, we did not find evidence to
support differential prediction of rule-breaking versus aggression.
Rather, our DC behavior measure predicted higher levels of both,
suggesting that this measure may be useful in identifying children
at greatest risk of severe behavior problems across dimensions. We
interpret this finding within a long-established classification that
focuses on both overt and covert dimensions within youth antiso-
cial behavior (e.g., Loeber & Schmaling, 1985). Of relevance, a
“versatile/mixed” antisocial subgroup with aggressive (e.g., fight-
ing) and rule-breaking (e.g., theft) problems are thought to pose the
greatest risk for more serious forms of violence and aggression
into adolescence (see Dishion, 2014 for a review). Findings from
the current study suggest that DC behavior may tap a construct
over and above the early emergence of covert, rule-breaking be-
haviors alone that fits with conceptualizations of a “versatile/
mixed” antisocial group.
4
4
Note that we recomputed models examining links between trait
(deceitful-callous [DC] behavior and behavior problems) and informant
(primary and alternative caregivers) factors and later aggression, rule-
breaking and callous-unemotional behavior in just the control group (N
364). The pattern of findings was broadly similar, suggesting unique
effects of DC behavior on outcomes from age 3 onward, and significant
effects of informant effects, particularly for within-informant models. We
found some evidence to suggest a differential prediction of later rule-
breaking by earlier DC behavior versus prediction of later aggression by
earlier behavior problems; otherwise the pattern of findings was almost
identical in this subsample (results available from study authors on re-
quest).
Table 1
Descriptives of Study Variables
Measures assessed at each age NM(SD) Range
Age 2
DC behavior (PC) 725 7.72 (2.86) 2–17
DC behavior (AC) 414 6.16 (2.43) 2–15
Behavior problems (PC) 687 127.00 (27.83) 52–233
Behavior problems (AC) 362 113.28 (28.14) 43–213
Age 3
DC behavior (PC) 649 7.62 (3.13) 2–18
DC behavior (AC) 411 6.73 (3.05) 2–18
Behavior problems (PC) 615 125.05 (31.87) 50–219
Behavior problems (AC) 384 112.60 (29.53) 41–203
Age 9.5
Aggressive behavior (PC) 586 7.90 (6.79) 0–32
Aggressive behavior (AC) 426 6.99 (6.16) 0–31
Aggressive behavior (T) 385 5.30 (7.49) 0–37
Rule-breaking behavior (PC) 586 2.81 (2.77) 0–20
Rule-breaking behavior (AC) 427 2.51 (2.58) 0–19
Rule-breaking behavior (T) 385 2.26 (2.87) 0–16
CU behavior total score (PC) 533 18.33 (8.83) 0–52
CU behavior total score (AC) 392 19.41 (8.61) 0–49
Note. PC primary caregiver; AC alternative caregiver; T teacher; CU callous-unemotional; DC
deceitful-callous. We report means and standard deviations for observed summed scores for DC behavior and
behavior problems at ages 2 and 3 and CU behavior at age 9.5 for ease of interpretation. The DC behavior
summed scale comprises scores on five items from three different behavior questionnaires: the CBCL, 0 –2 scale
(0 not true,1somewhat true;2very true); the Eyberg 1–7 scale (1 never;4seldom;7always);
and the Adult-Child Relationship Scale (ACRS), 1–5 scale (1 definitely note;3not sure;5definitely).
The Behavior Problems Scale comprises 35 items from the Eyberg 7-point scale (1 never;4sometimes;7
always (see the Method section). While summary statistics for summed scores are presented in this table, the
majority of subsequent analyses modeled latent factors for measures (see Figures 1–3). Rule-breaking and
aggressive behavior scores were log-transformed for subsequent analyses to account for negative skew.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
8WALLER, DISHION, SHAW, GARDNER, WILSON, AND HYDE
A novel aspect of this study was an examination of models
controlling for informant method factors, guided by a large body of
literature highlighting the importance of method variance (Camp-
bell & Fiske, 1959; Podsakoff et al., 2003). MMMT models
revealed significant effects of early childhood DC behavior on
later outcomes over and above the effects of informant factors,
suggesting that the unique predictive validity of our DC behavior
measure cannot solely be accounted for by rater effects. However,
we also found that the informant factors across ages 2– 4 predicted
aggressive and rule-breaking behavior over and above the effects
of DC behavior and behavior problem trait factors. Strongest
associations were within informant (e.g., primary caregiver infor-
mant factor predicting primary caregiver-reported outcomes),
highlighting that potential rater biases could account for many of
the within-informant associations reported in previous studies that
have used single informant ratings to assess whether CU behavior
is related to future behavior problems (Frick et al., 2014).
Interestingly however, we also found some cross-informant
prediction by method factors. Thus, there was evidence that infor-
mant factors actually predicted someone else’s ratings of the
child’s behavior up to seven years later (i.e., associations were not
inflated by within-rater bias). One possibility is that the cross-
informant prediction for primary and alternative caregivers could
have been driven, at least in part, by shared perceptions of the
child, including perceptions resulting from similarity in ratings
between two caregivers who have previously discussed the child’s
behavior (i.e., spouses/coparents/parent or grandparent). This ex-
planation does not, however, address method factors predicting
teacher-reported outcomes (though parent and teacher perceptions
could affect each other during parent-teacher communications).
Indeed, it is noteworthy that, despite robust prediction of aggres-
sion and rule-breaking within and across primary and alternative
caregiver report, the DC behavior factor at ages 2– 4 did not
consistently predict teacher-reported outcomes. One explanation is
that the lack of agreement across parent and teacher reports reflects
“true” differences in the behavior of children in home versus
school based on different expectations and contingences across
these settings. Thus, the predictive validity of CU behavior as rated
by a parent may be limited to the home setting. Future studies are
needed to examine corroboration across informants from home
versus school settings, and particularly whether discrepancies in
agreement differentially predict long-term outcomes (De Los
Reyes, Thomas, Goodman, & Kundey, 2013). Further, while
teachers were required to have known students for a minimum of
two months to complete questionnaires, the inconsistent associa-
tions found may reflect lower knowledge that teachers had of
children based on fewer observations of the child. Future studies
could therefore address this issue by scheduling school data col-
lection for the end of the school year to maximize the time that
teachers have had to get to know children.
Beyond the lack of significant associations between the DC
behavior trait/construct factor and teacher-reported outcomes, we
Table 2
Zero-Order Correlations Between Primary and Alternative Caregiver Reports of DC Behavior
and Behavior Problems Scores at Ages 2 and 3 and Primary Caregiver, Alternative Caregiver,
and Teacher Reports of Aggressive and Rule-Breaking Behavior at Age 9.5
Age 9.5 outcomes across informants
Aggressive behavior Rule-breaking
PC AC T PC AC T
Age 2
DC behavior (PC) .14
ⴱⴱ
.08
.06 .16
ⴱⴱⴱ
.06 .05
DC behavior (AC) .14
ⴱⴱ
.14 .03 .13
.12
.04
Behavior problems (PC) .24
ⴱⴱⴱ
.16
ⴱⴱⴱ
.05 .21
ⴱⴱⴱ
.09
.08
Behavior problems (AC) .13
ⴱⴱ
.13
.02 .09
.09 .004
Age 3
DC behavior (PC) .31
ⴱⴱⴱ
.18
ⴱⴱⴱ
.06 .27
ⴱⴱⴱ
.16
ⴱⴱⴱ
.04
DC behavior (AC) .21
ⴱⴱⴱ
.17
ⴱⴱⴱ
.08 .18
ⴱⴱ
.17
ⴱⴱⴱ
.05
Behavior problems (PC) .35
ⴱⴱⴱ
.13
.05 .31
ⴱⴱⴱ
.10
.05
Behavior problems (AC) .19
ⴱⴱⴱ
.21
ⴱⴱ
.06 .15
ⴱⴱ
.18
ⴱⴱ
.02
Age 9.5
Aggressive behavior (PC)
Aggressive behavior (AC) .34
ⴱⴱⴱ
Aggressive behavior (T) .14
ⴱⴱ
.08
Rule-breaking behavior (PC) .74
ⴱⴱⴱ
.29
ⴱⴱⴱ
.16
ⴱⴱⴱ
Rule-breaking behavior (AC) .26
ⴱⴱⴱ
.71
ⴱⴱⴱ
.09
.33
ⴱⴱⴱ
Rule-breaking behavior (T) .13
.08
.71
ⴱⴱⴱ
.20
ⴱⴱⴱ
.11
Note. PC primary caregiver; AC alternative caregiver; T teacher; CU callous-unemotional; DC
deceitful-callous. Pattern of findings for age 4 DC behavior and behavior problems with outcomes at age 9.5
were similar to those for age 3. Thus, these findings are not presented for brevity, but available on request. Note
that inter-correlations between DC behavior and behavior problems from ages 2– 4 have been reported in a
previous study (see Hyde et al., 2013). Fisher’s r-to-ztransformations showed that correlations with aggressive
and rule-breaking behavior at age 9.5 were significantly greater in magnitude for age 3 DC behavior than age
2 DC behavior within primary caregiver informant reports (range, z⫽⫺2.2–3.43, p.001) and for primary
caregiver predicting alternative caregiver reports (range, z1.93 – 1.94, p.05).
p.10.
p.05.
ⴱⴱ
p.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p.001.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
9
VALIDITY OF EARLY CALLOUS-UNEMOTIONAL BEHAVIOR
did find, somewhat surprisingly, that the primary caregiver meth-
od/informant factor at age 2 predicted both teacher-reported ag-
gression and rule-breaking. Thus, it may be that at this very early
age, parents see something “negative” in children’s early behavior
that we are not measuring well, but that has important predictive
validity. For example, only a handful of items in the scale used to
assess behavior problems addressed inattention (e.g., “he/she has a
short attention span”) or hyperactivity (“he/she is overactive or
restless”). Therefore, having parsed variance specific to the DC
behavior and behavior problems factors, the remaining variance
with predictive validity could have been parents picking up on
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder behaviors. Alternatively,
the informant factor may reflect other processes relating to the
parent, including harsh parenting or depressive symptoms, which
exacerbate risk for behavior problems or CU behavior via coercive
parent-child interactions or negative developmental processes re-
sulting in later (teacher-reported) externalizing behaviors (Dishion,
2014). The informant factor could also reflect other types of
learned behaviors not captured by the items in these analyses (i.e.,
mistrust or resentment of a specific adult), a heritable trait, or a
parental projection onto or belief about the child that is not
reflected in the child’s behavior. These “unobserved” variables
could further increase risk for children to show behavior problems.
Future studies that explicitly examine whether informant percep-
tions influence children’s outcomes could address these issues
either by including observations of parenting behaviors, specific
parental characteristics, the inclusion of items in models that assess
broader dimensions of child behavior (e.g., internalizing, prosoci-
ality), multiwave models examining reciprocal effects between
informant and trait factors, or genetically informed designs to test
various possibilities explaining informant factor predictive effects
from very early childhood.
Early Childhood DC Behavior Uniquely Predicts Late
Childhood CU Behavior
Our measure of DC behavior uniquely predicted CU behavior
general factor scores at age 9.5 modeled within a bifactor frame-
work while also controlling for earlier behavior problems. The
convergence of early childhood DC behavior with general CU
behavior scores in late childhood is a useful test of construct
validity, as both our DC behavior measure and the ICU tap
variance relating to a lack of empathy and deficits in guilt, albeit
via different items and at different ages. At the same time, we
caution the use of the somewhat artificial statistical modeling
approach of our analyses. While we demonstrated links between
two CU behavior measures in early and late childhood, we do not
intend to imply stability in the CU behavior construct at either the
mean or individual levels. Rather, these analyses show that rank
order in early childhood is predictive of rank order of CU behavior
in middle childhood and cannot address developmental changes in
mean levels over time. Indeed, a growing body of literature high-
lights that CU behavior is far from trait-like, immutable, or any
more stable than behavior problems, showing heterogeneity in
terms of trajectories across childhood (Fontaine, McCrory, Boivin,
Moffitt, & Viding, 2011) and appearing malleable in response to
parenting practices and other sources of environmental influence
(Waller et al., 2013). Nevertheless, we see results as representing
a “proof of concept” of our early childhood measure of DC
behavior, which used items from behavior checklists that were not
originally designed to capture the CU behavior construct. To
confirm this conclusion, we examined cross-lagged models that
controlled for behavior problems both at ages 3 and 9.5, and that
included informant method factors. We found that DC behavior at
age 3 continued to uniquely predict CU behavior at age 9.5 within
Table 3
Multitrait Multimethod Models Examining Age 2 Primary and Alternative Caregiver Reports of DC Behavior and Behavior Problems
Predicting Aggressive, Rule-Breaking, and CU Behavior at Age 9.5
Primary caregiver
reports
Alternative caregiver
reports
Teacher
reports
Predictors at age 2 B(SE)B(SE)B(SE)
Aggression
Informant factors
Primary caregiver factor .04 (.01) .25
ⴱⴱⴱ
.02 (.007) .16
ⴱⴱ
.02 (.01) .10
Alternative caregiver factor .02 (.01) .16
ⴱⴱ
.02 (.008) .13
.002 (.01) .01
Construct/trait factors
Behavior problems factor .02 (.01) .13
ⴱⴱ
.02 (.009) .11
.003 (.01) .02
DC behavior factor .03 (.01) .19
ⴱⴱⴱ
.02 (.01) .17
.01 (.01) .08
Rule-breaking
Informant factors
Primary caregiver factor .02 (.003) .24
ⴱⴱⴱ
.01 (.004) .13
ⴱⴱ
.01 (.005) .10
Alternative caregiver factor .01 (.004) .12
.01 (.005) .13
.001 (.006) .001
Construct/trait factors
Behavior problems factor .01 (.004) .10
.005 (.005) .06 .003 (.006) .04
DC behavior factor .02 (.01) .23
ⴱⴱⴱ
.01 (.006) .10 .003 (.006) .04
Note. PC primary caregiver; AC alternative caregiver; CU callous-unemotional; DC deceitful-callous. See Figure 2 for hypothesized model.
We examined whether DC behavior and behavior problem trait factors and primary caregiver and alternative caregiver method factors at age 3 predicted
aggression and rule-breaking at ages 9.5 assessed via primary and alternative caregiver and teacher reports (i.e., across informant and settings). We
controlled for within-time correlations of DC behavior and behavior problems factors. We ran models controlling for intervention group, project location,
child gender, ethnicity and race, family income, and parent education—findings unchanged.
p.10.
p.05.
ⴱⴱ
p.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p.001.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
10 WALLER, DISHION, SHAW, GARDNER, WILSON, AND HYDE
and across informant, meaning that we could discount the possi-
bility that associations between CU behavior measures in early
versus late childhood reflected severity or informant perceptions,
and supporting the CU behavior construct as having developmen-
tal meaning, even at this young age.
These findings are in line with a separate body of evidence in
the developmental literature indicating that “CU-like” behavior
meaningfully exists and can be measured in preschool children
because individual differences in core characteristics related to CU
behavior emerge at ages 2–3 years old, including the capacity for
empathic concern (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1990), sharing rewards
with others (Fehr et al., 2008), and the distinction between “nice”
versus “nasty” theory of mind (Ronald, Happe, Hughes, & Plomin,
2005). At the same time, it is vital to remain mindful of the
potential hazards associated with labeling very young children as
“callous and unemotional,” including the need for continued eval-
uation of the developmental appropriateness of items used to
assess CU behavior, the assumption that individual differences
reflect psychopathology versus developmental delay (or other pro-
cesses, e.g., autism), and the importance of recognizing changes in
personality and temperament features across childhood (Seagrave
& Grisso, 2002). Nevertheless, we continue to believe ultimately
in the translational potential of this basic research, focusing par-
ticularly on the positive utility of identifying children who are at
high risk of escalating behavior problems based on the presence of
CU behavior and/or individual differences in empathic concern,
prosociality, or moral regulation (Waller, Shaw, et al., 2015).
Thus, we emphasize that our conceptualization and measurement
of CU behavior may help to identify young children with specific
socioemotional and behavioral needs, who are less likely to desist
from early starting conduct problems and may require targeted and
personalized treatments.
DC Behavior Is More Reliably Predictive of Outcomes
From Age 3 Onward
Finally, in addition to examining links with behavior outcomes
within MMMT models, we tested whether the validity of our early
childhood measure of CU behavior showed developmental speci-
ficity by comparing age 2 findings to those for ages 3 and 4. It is
noteworthy that the majority of previous studies that have assessed
the predictive validity of CU behavior in early childhood have
focused on examining prediction from age 3 onward (Waller,
Hyde, et al., 2015; Waller, Shaw, et al., 2015; Willoughby et al.,
2014). In support of the developmental focus of these studies, we
found that the magnitude of zero-order correlations between DC
behavior and later behavior problems was greater at ages 3 and 4
versus age 2. Further, while DC behavior at age 2 predicted
primary caregiver-reported outcomes, there was no significant
cross-informant prediction of outcomes (i.e., reported by alterna-
tive caregivers). In contrast, by age 3 DC behavior showed con-
sistent prediction of outcomes within and across informants. Fi-
nally, DC behavior at age 3 onward showed consistent within and
across informant links with the ICU, a purpose-developed CU
behavior measure. In contrast, there were comparable predictive
effect sizes for associations between behavior problems versus DC
behavior at age 2 and CU behavior at age 9.5, suggesting that items
indexing CU-like behavior are less meaningful and potentially less
easily differentiated from early behavior problems at age 2. These
findings are in line with our conclusions in a previous study in this
Table 4
Multitrait Multimethod Models Examining Age 3 Primary and Alternative Caregiver Reports of DC Behavior and Behavior Problems
Predicting Aggressive, Rule-Breaking, and CU Behavior at Age 9.5
Primary caregiver
reports
Alternative caregiver
reports
Teacher
reports
Predictors at age 3 B(SE)B(SE)B(SE)
Aggression
Informant factors
Primary caregiver factor .04 (.01) .28
ⴱⴱⴱ
.01 (.007) .08 .004 (.01) .02
Alternative caregiver factor .01 (.01) .05 .03 (.01) .19
ⴱⴱ
.01 (.01) .03
Construct/trait factors
Behavior problems factor .02 (.01) .10 .02 (.01) .13 .004 (.02) .02
DC behavior factor .05 (.01) .32
ⴱⴱⴱ
.04 (.01) .28
ⴱⴱ
.03 (.02) .18, p.10
Rule-breaking
Informant factors
Primary caregiver factor .02 (.004) .26
ⴱⴱⴱ
.01 (.004) .07 .002 (.003) .02
Alternative caregiver factor .002 (.004) .03 .01 (.004) .13
.01 (.006) .15
Construct/trait factors
Behavior problems factor .003 (.01) .03 .001 (.007) .02 .001 (.01) .01
DC behavior factor .03 (.01) .33
ⴱⴱⴱ
.03 (.001) .37
ⴱⴱⴱ
.01 (.01) .13
Note. PC primary caregiver; AC alternative caregiver; CU callous unemotional; DC deceitful-callous. See Figure 2 for hypothesized model.
We examined whether DC behavior and behavior problem factors or primary caregiver and alternative caregiver method factors at age 3 predicted
aggression and rule-breaking at ages 9.5 (across informants and settings). We controlled for within-time correlations of DC behavior and behavior problems
factors. We ran models controlling for the following relevant demographic covariates: intervention group, project location, child gender, ethnicity and race,
family income, and parent education. The pattern of findings was unchanged when these covariates were included in models, and thus results are not
presented for brevity.
p.05.
ⴱⴱ
p.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p.001.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
11
VALIDITY OF EARLY CALLOUS-UNEMOTIONAL BEHAVIOR
sample and are further supported by the lower internal consistency
of the DC behavior measure at age 2 (Hyde et al., 2013). Taken in
conjunction with findings from our first study goal, measures of
early CU-like behavior appear to exhibit more reliable predictive
and construct validity when assessed from age 3 onward.
Strengths and Limitations
There were a number of strengths to the current study. In
particular, we examined associations between early CU behavior
and later aggressive, rule-breaking, and CU behavior over 5.5- to
7.5-year follow-up periods, incorporated reports of behavior from
three different informants, and examined associations within bi-
factor, MMMT, and cross-lagged frameworks, all within a rela-
tively large, diverse, and high-risk sample. However, findings
should be considered alongside several limitations. First, we fo-
cused on low-income children with risk factors across multiple
domains, including sociodemographic risk, family risk, and early
child problem behavior. Thus, it is unclear whether results would
generalize to children from higher-income families, families with
fewer risk factors, or clinic-referred populations. Second, a more
thorough examination of any associations between trait and
method factors would involve testing MMMT models in both early
(ages 2– 4) and late (age 9.5) childhood. However, the number of
required parameters made this model too computationally difficult
to estimate within this sample. Finally, although there was gener-
ally corroboration across models using primary versus alternative
caregiver reports, we found inconsistent predictions of teacher-
reported outcomes, including one finding opposite to the expected
direction. We accounted for informant perceptions/method factors
within models testing associations between caregiver-reported out-
comes. Thus, these associations are likely robust to the potential
confounding effects of shared method variance. Nevertheless, the
lack of prediction of teacher-reported outcomes suggests limita-
tions to the concept that children with either early behavior prob-
lems or CU behavior can be characterized as having a stable and
cross-context trait. Future studies are needed to explore whether
discrepancies in what parents and teachers report reflect true
differences in children’s behavior across settings.
Conclusions and Future Directions
Our findings have implications for preventative interventions.
First, we demonstrated that from age 3 onward, DC behavior
robustly predicted worse behavior problems in late childhood.
Extrapolating from these findings, early childhood measures of CU
behavior may help identify children most in need of intervention,
which could enable treatment components to be tailored to fit
socioemotional needs related to CU behavior (i.e., lower empathic
concern). This conclusion is particularly salient given the recent
inclusion of a CU behavior specifier for the diagnosis of child
conduct disorder into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (5th ed.; “with limited prosocial emotions”;
American Psychiatric Association, 2013), meaning that clinicians
are already making diagnostic and treatment decisions based on
the presence of child CU behavior. However, the finding that
Table 5
Zero-Order Correlations and Multiple Regression Coefficients for Associations Between Primary and Alternative Caregiver Reports
of CU Behavior Versus Behavior Problems Scores at Ages 2 and 3 and Primary Caregiver Reports of CU Behavior at Age 9.5
Predictors at ages 2,
3, and 4
Primary caregiver-reported CU behavior at age 9.5— extracted factors scores based on Waller, Wright, et al. (2015)
General CU behavior factor Specific callous Specific uncaring Specific unemotional
RB(SE)rB(SE)rB(SE)rB(SE)
Age 2 within informant
Behavior problems (PC) .17
ⴱⴱⴱ
.004 (.001) .13
ⴱⴱ
.13
ⴱⴱ
.003 (.001) .13
ⴱⴱ
.001 .001 (.001) .02 .01 .001 (.001) .03
DC behavior (PC) .18
ⴱⴱⴱ
.89 (.33) .12
ⴱⴱ
.05 .01 (.27) .001 .09 .20 (.23) .05 .09
.60 (.28) .10
Age 2 across informant
Behavior problems
(AC) .07 .001 (.003) .01 .08 .002 (.002) .10 .02 .001 (.002) .02 .13
.003 (.002) .10
DC behavior (AC) .11
1.16 (.90) .10 .04 .11 (.71) .01 .01 .33 (.52) .05 .12
.59 (.70) .07
Age 3 within informant
Behavior problems (PC) .18
ⴱⴱ
.002 (.002) .06 .18
ⴱⴱⴱ
.004 (.001) .17
ⴱⴱ
.11
.002 (.001) .10 .06 .003 (.001) .11
DC behavior (PC) .24
ⴱⴱⴱ
1.13 (.30) .21
ⴱⴱⴱ
.12
.08 (.26) .02 .07 .04 (.19) .01 .01 .33 (.24) .08
Age 3 across informant
Behavior problems
(AC) .17
ⴱⴱ
.003 (.003) .08 .09 .003 (.002) .11 .02 .001 (.002) .04 .06 .001 (.002) .02
DC behavior (AC) .20
ⴱⴱⴱ
.82 (.36) .18
.05 .07 (.26) .02 .09 .45 (.26) .14 .12
.45 (.26) .13
Age 4 within informant
Behavior problems (PC) .19
ⴱⴱⴱ
.001 (.002) .05 .16
ⴱⴱⴱ
.004 (.002) .18
ⴱⴱ
.08 .001 (.001) .01 .05 .001 (.001) .01
DC behavior (PC) .24
ⴱⴱⴱ
.76 (.24) .21
ⴱⴱⴱ
.09
.09 (.20) .03 .11
.23 (.14) .11
.07 .18 (.19) .06
Age 4 across informant
Behavior problems
(AC) .09 .001 (.003) .04 .13
.004 (.002) .15
.13
.002 (.001) .11 .09 .01 (.002) .21
DC behavior (AC) .21
ⴱⴱⴱ
1.41 (.43) .27
ⴱⴱ
.08 .06 (.31) .02 .11
.22 (.23) .07 .02 .57 (.34) .14
Note. See Figure 2. PC primary caregiver; AC alternative caregiver; CU callous unemotional; DC deceitful-callous. We specified within-time
correlation between DC behavior and behavior problems at ages 2– 4 to account for their overlap as reported in previous studies in this sample (see Hyde
et al., 2013). Fisher r-to-ztransformations showed that correlations with CU behavior at age 9.5 were significantly greater in magnitude for age 3 DC
behavior than for age 2 DC behavior within alternative caregiver reports (z 1.94, p.05) and across primary and alternative caregivers reports (range,
z2.11 – 2.34, p.05). We re-ran models controlling treatment status, project location, child gender, race and ethnicity, family income, and parent
education—findings unchanged.
p.10.
p.05.
ⴱⴱ
p.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p.001.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
12 WALLER, DISHION, SHAW, GARDNER, WILSON, AND HYDE
aggression and rule-breaking were also consistently predicted by
informant factors highlights that variance relating to ideas or
beliefs of the informant (i.e., parent) can, in many cases, add as
much variance to the prediction of outcomes as the supposed,
underlying trait. Thus, in relation to intervention implications, it is
vital to consider the fact that parental characteristics, attitudes,
caregiving practices, and the broader family ecology continue to
represent key mechanisms for identifying at-risk, vulnerable chil-
dren and those families who may be most in need of early inter-
vention (Dishion et al., 2008; Shaw & Shelleby, 2014). Second, we
demonstrated that our “brief-adapted,” five-item DC behavior
measure in early childhood converged with CU behavior assessed
Figure 3. Model showing age 3 multitrait multimethod model within cross-lagged framework predicting
primary versus alternative caregiver reports of callous-unemotional (CU) behavior and externalizing behavior at
age 9.5. (a) Primary caregiver reports of outcomes at age 9.5, and (b) Alternative caregiver reports of outcomes
at age 9.5. Note. PC primary caregiver; AC alternative caregiver; CU callous unemotional; DC
deceitful-callous. Models tested whether a DC behavior trait, behavior problem trait, or primary and alternative
caregiver method factors at age 3 predicted later CU behavior or externalizing behavior, controlling for
within-time correlations (cross-lagged framework) across two reports of outcomes at age 9.5—primary caregiver
in (a) and alternative caregiver in (b). We reran models controlling for treatment status, project location, child
gender, race, and ethnicity, family income, and parent education and age—findings unchanged.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
13
VALIDITY OF EARLY CALLOUS-UNEMOTIONAL BEHAVIOR
in late childhood via a “gold-standard” measure. In line with other
recent studies, this finding supports the notion that, at least from
age 3 onward, CU behavior items on common behavior question-
naires appear quantitatively distinct from other dimensions within
childhood behavior problems (Waller, Shaw, et al., 2015). Finally,
beyond the fact that we examined convergence of two CU behav-
ior measures over time and that MMMT models included CU
behavior trait factors, we emphasize that our conceptualization of
CU behavior represents simply one way to identify children who
may be at most risk of poor outcomes, and who would benefit from
empirically supported and tailored preventative interventions.
Thus, we do not imply that early CU behavior can or should be
conflated with CU traits (e.g., unchangeable, highly stable), nor
that CU behavior should be equated with psychopathic traits or
psychopathy in adulthood, rather that CU behavior can be consid-
ered a risk factor for these later indicators of severe trajectories of
antisocial behavior or aggression. In sum, we believe that our
findings highlight potentially new ways to identify children by age
3 who are less likely to naturally desist from early behavior
problems and may have different treatment needs across child-
hood.
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Teacher’s Report Form and
1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of
Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. (2000). ASEBA preschool forms &
profiles: An integrated system of multi-informant assessment. Burling-
ton, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical man-
ual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant
validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin,
56, 81–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0046016
Campbell, S. B. (1995). Behavior problems in preschool children: A
review of recent research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
36, 113–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1995.tb01657.x
Côté, S. M., Vaillancourt, T., LeBlanc, J. C., Nagin, D. S., & Tremblay,
R. E. (2006). The development of physical aggression from toddlerhood
to pre-adolescence: A nation wide longitudinal study of Canadian chil-
dren. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 68 – 85. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1007/s10802-005-9001-z
Dadds, M. R., Fraser, J., Frost, A., & Hawes, D. J. (2005). Disentangling
the underlying dimensions of psychopathy and conduct problems in
childhood: A community study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 73, 400 – 410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.3
.400
De Los Reyes, A., Thomas, S. A., Goodman, K. L., & Kundey, S. M.
(2013). Principles underlying the use of multiple informants’ reports.
Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 123–149. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185617
Dishion, T. (2014). A developmental model of aggression and violence:
Microsocial and macrosocial dynamics within an ecological framework.
In M. Lewis & K. D. Rudolph (Eds.), Handbook of developmental
psychopathology (pp. 449 465). New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9608-3_23
Dishion, T. J., & Patterson, G. R. (1992). Age effects in parent training
outcome. Behavior Therapy, 23, 719 –729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0005-7894(05)80231-X
Dishion, T. J., Shaw, D., Connell, A., Gardner, F., Weaver, C., & Wilson,
M. (2008). The family check-up with high-risk indigent families: Pre-
venting problem behavior by increasing parents’ positive behavior sup-
port in early childhood. Child Development, 79, 1395–1414. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01195.x
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1990). Empathy: Conceptualization, mea-
surement, and relation to prosocial behavior. Motivation and Emotion,
14, 131–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00991640
Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full
information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in struc-
tural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 430 – 457.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5
Essau, C. A., Sasagawa, S., & Frick, P. J. (2006). Callous-unemotional
traits in a community sample of adolescents. Assessment, 13, 454 – 469.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191106287354
Fehr, E., Bernhard, H., & Rockenbach, B. (2008). Egalitarianism in
young children. Nature, 454, 1079 –1083. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
nature07155
Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative
methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data.
Psychological Methods, 9, 466 – 491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-
989X.9.4.466
Fontaine, N. M., McCrory, E. J., Boivin, M., Moffitt, T. E., & Viding, E.
(2011). Predictors and outcomes of joint trajectories of callous-
unemotional traits and conduct problems in childhood. Journal of Ab-
normal Psychology, 120, 730 –742. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022620
Frick, P. J. (2004). The Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits. Unpub-
lished rating scale.
Frick, P. J., & Morris, A. S. (2004). Temperament and developmental
pathways to conduct problems. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, 33, 54 – 68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15374424J
CCP3301_6
Frick, P. J., Ray, J. V., Thornton, L. C., & Kahn, R. E. (2014). Annual
research review: A developmental psychopathology approach to under-
standing callous-unemotional traits in children and adolescents with
serious conduct problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
55, 532–548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12152
Hyde, L. W., Shaw, D. S., Gardner, F., Cheong, J., Dishion, T. J., &
Wilson, M. (2013). Dimensions of callousness in early childhood: Links
to problem behavior and family intervention effectiveness. Development
and Psychopathology, 25, 347–363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S0954579412001101
Kimonis, E. R., Frick, P. J., Boris, N. W., Smyke, A. T., Cornell, A. H.,
Farrell, J. M., & Zeanah, C. H. (2006). Callous-unemotional features,
behavioral inhibition, and parenting: Independent predictors of aggres-
sion in a high-risk preschool sample. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 15, 741–752. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10826-006-9047-8
Loeber, R., & Schmaling, K. B. (1985). Empirical evidence for overt and
covert patterns of antisocial conduct problems: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 337–353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
BF00910652
Marsh, H. W., & Grayson, D. (1995). Latent variable models of multitrait-
multimethod data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2014). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.).
Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Obradovi´
c, J., Pardini, D. A., Long, J. D., & Loeber, R. (2007). Measuring
interpersonal callousness in boys from childhood to adolescence: An
examination of longitudinal invariance and temporal stability. Journal of
Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36, 276 –292. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1080/15374410701441633
Pianta, R. C. (2001). STRS: Student-Teacher Relationship Scale: Profes-
sional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 879 –903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
14 WALLER, DISHION, SHAW, GARDNER, WILSON, AND HYDE
Reid, M. J., Webster-Stratton, C., & Baydar, N. (2004). Halting the
development of conduct problems in head start children: The effects of
parent training. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,
33, 279 –291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3302_10
Robinson, E. A., Eyberg, S. M., & Ross, A. W. (1980). The standardization
of an inventory of child conduct problem behaviors. Journal of Clinical
Child Psychology, 9, 22–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/153744180
09532938
Ronald, A., Happe, F., Hughes, C., & Plomin, R. (2005). Nice and nasty
theory of mind in preschool children: Nature and nurture. Social Devel-
opment, 14, 664 – 684. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2005
.00323.x
Seagrave, D., & Grisso, T. (2002). Adolescent development and the mea-
surement of juvenile psychopathy. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 219 –
239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1014696110850
Shaw, D. S., Gilliom, M., Ingoldsby, E. M., & Nagin, D. S. (2003).
Trajectories leading to school-age conduct problems. Developmental
Psychology, 39, 189 –200.
Shaw, D. S., & Shelleby, E. C. (2014). Early-starting conduct problems:
Intersection of conduct problems and poverty. Annual Review of Clinical
Psychology, 10, 503–528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-
032813-153650
Waller, R., Gardner, F., & Hyde, L. W. (2013). What are the associations
between parenting, callous-unemotional traits, and antisocial behavior in
youth? A systematic review of evidence. Clinical Psychology Review,
33, 593– 608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2013.03.001
Waller, R., Hyde, L. W., Grabell, A. S., Alves, M. L., & Olson, S. L.
(2015). Differential associations of early callous-unemotional, opposi-
tional, and ADHD behaviors: Multiple domains within early-starting
conduct problems? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56,
657– 666. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12326
Waller, R., Shaw, D. S., Neiderhiser, J. M., Ganiban, J. M., Natsuaki,
M. N., Reiss, D.,...Hyde, L. W. (2015). Toward an understanding of
the role of the environment in the development of early callous behavior.
Journal of Personality. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1111/jopy.12221
Waller, R., Wright, A. G., Shaw, D. S., Gardner, F., Dishion, T. J., Wilson,
M. N., & Hyde, L. W. (2015). Factor structure and construct validity of
the Parent-Reported Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits among
high-risk 9-year-olds. Assessment, 22, 561–580. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/1073191114556101
Webster-Stratton, C., & Taylor, T. (2001). Nipping early risk factors in the
bud: Preventing substance abuse, delinquency, and violence in adoles-
cence through interventions targeted at young children (0 8 years).
Prevention Science, 2, 165–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:
1011510923900
Willoughby, M. T., Mills-Koonce, W. R., Gottfredson, N. C., & Wagner,
N. (2014). Measuring callous unemotional behaviors in early childhood:
Factor structure and the prediction of stable aggression in middle child-
hood. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 36, 30 –
42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10862-013-9379-9
Willoughby, M. T., Waschbusch, D. A., Moore, G. A., & Propper, C. B.
(2011). Using the ASEBA to screen for callous unemotional traits in
early childhood: Factor structure, temporal stability, and utility. Journal
of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 33, 19 –30. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1007/s10862-010-9195-4
Received June 11, 2015
Revision received February 1, 2016
Accepted May 25, 2016
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
15
VALIDITY OF EARLY CALLOUS-UNEMOTIONAL BEHAVIOR
... For example, CU behaviors were not only positively correlated with children's poor peer relationships (Waller et al., 2017), but also with aggressive behaviors in middle to late childhood (Waller et al., 2017;Obando et al., 2022). CU behaviors as a risk factor help to identify children who exhibit persistent and severe conduct problems (Longman et al., 2016;Song et al., 2016;Waller et al., 2016Waller et al., , 2017. However, these studies have been limited largely to Western countries (Frick et al., 2014). ...
... These characteristics seem to increase the risk of children developing severe and chronic conduct problems (Frick et al., 2014). Numerous studies indicate that CU behaviors were risk factors that influence children to exhibit severe and stable conduct problems throughout middle and late childhood (Frick et al., 2014;Waller et al., 2016Waller et al., , 2017. For example, CU behaviors rated by mothers at age 3 independently predicted persistently high levels of aggression rated by teachers from ages 6 to 12 (Willoughby et al., 2014). ...
... First, we found that CU behaviors were positively associated with conduct problems in typically developing preschool children despite controlling for child age and parental education. It is in line with our hypothesis and consistent with Western samples (Longman et al., 2016;Waller et al., 2016). These findings suggest that measuring children's CU behavior contributes to identify children with conduct problems and most in need of intervention. ...
Article
Full-text available
Introduction Conduct problems in children are related to callous-unemotional (CU) behaviors. However, results of the relationships between CU behaviors and conduct problems among preschoolers mainly focused on Western countries, no studies have examined whether CU behaviors predict conduct problem in Chinese preschoolers. The primary objective of the current study therefore was to examine the associations between CU behaviors and conduct problems as well as the moderating effects of surgency and child gender in Chinese preschool children. Methods The present study randomly selected 2,154 children (1,043 boys, Mage = 56 months, SD = 10.47) from six kindergartens in Shanghai, People’s Republic of China. Mothers rated children’s surgency and teachers reported children’s CU behaviors and conduct problems. Results Results demonstrated that CU behaviors were positively associated with conduct problems. Surgency and child gender significantly moderated these associations. Specifically, CU behaviors were positively associated with conduct problems, with a stronger effect found for high levels of surgency. CU behaviors had a positive association with conduct problems, with a stronger effect found for boys. Discussion This study indicate that temperament and gender characteristics influence conduct problems in preschoolers who exhibit high levels of CU behaviors. As well, the findings emphasize the significance of considering the meaning and implication of CU behaviors in Chinese culture.
... That is, children with CU traits may exhibit temperamental (e.g., behavioral disinhibition) and emotion-processing deficits, which lead to reduced responsiveness to guilt-inducing situations involving punishment or the distress of others (Frick et al., 2014a;Munneke et al., 2018;Olthof, 2012). Their propensity to seek out thrilling and sensational experiences can also contribute to their increased risk for engaging in conduct problems (Waller et al., 2016). In addition, conduct problems can lead to profound disruptions within social relationships among youth, contributing to hostile interpersonal dynamics (e.g., conflict with parents; Awada & Shelleby, 2021). ...
Article
Existing research on callous-unemotional (CU) traits and conduct problems primarily focuses on the concurrent or unidirectional associations between these constructs (i.e., from CU traits to CP), with less attention given to their dynamic interplay during middle childhood. It is possible that socialization agents, such as peers, play a significant role in shaping the dynamic relation between CU traits and conduct problems early in development. Additionally, prior studies have shown that both CU traits and conduct problems are associated with poorer peer functioning. Considering the social information processing theory, which emphasizes the impact of cognitive processes on emotions and behavior in youth, this study evaluated the moderating role of cognitive appraisals (i.e., rumination, self-blame, and other-blame) in the context of peer conflict on the bidirectional association between callous-unemotional (CU) traits and conduct problems over the course of 1 academic year. The sample included 349 third- through fifth-grade students (51% boys; 53.2% Hispanic/Latinx) and their homeroom teachers (n = 30). At Time 1, children reported on their cognitive appraisals in response to peer conflict. Teachers provided reports of children’s CU traits and conduct problems at Time 1 and Time 2. Results indicated that conduct problems and other-blame uniquely predicted increases in CU traits over time. Further, high levels of self-blame and rumination exacerbated the prospective link from CU traits to subsequent conduct problems. These findings highlight the importance of addressing cognitive processes in prevention approaches aimed at reducing the risk of conduct problems and CU traits among children.
... However, it was unclear whether CU traits would have an impact on externalizing behaviors in preschool children, especially in LBC. The results of this study revealed that CU traits profoundly influenced externalizing behaviors (Hypothesis 1), which is consistent with the results of previous studies [81][82][83]. This also suggests that CU traits are an important marker variable for externalizing disorders during a critical stage of personality development and early childhood socialization [53]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Callous-unemotional traits and emotional lability/negativity of young children have been regarded as the markers of externalizing problem behaviors. Based on the sensitivity to threat and affiliative reward model and the general aggression model, emotional lability/negativity may act as a mediator in the relationship between callous-unemotional traits and externalizing problem behaviors. Additionally, a positive teacher-child relationship could act as a buffer given the parental absence in left-behind children. However, these links remain unexplored in left-behind preschool children. Therefore, this study explored the link between callous-unemotional traits of left-behind preschool children and externalizing problem behaviors, as well as the mediating role of emotional lability/negativity and the moderating role of a positive teacher-child relationship. Method Data were collected on 525 left-behind children aged 3 to 6 years from rural kindergartens in China. Preschool teachers reported all data through an online survey platform. Moderated mediation analysis was performed to examine whether the mediated relation between callous-unemotional traits and externalizing problem behaviors was moderated by a positive teacher-child relationship. Results The results showed callous-unemotional traits significantly predicted externalizing problem behaviors and lability/negativity acted as a mediator, while a positive teacher-child relationship acted as a protective factor in moderating the relationship between callous-unemotional traits and emotional lability/negativity. This study identified a moderated mediation effect among the four variables in left-behind preschool children in China. Conclusion The findings provide support for the advancement of theoretical foundations, and provide an avenue for further exploration to support the mental health and overall development of left-behind children during early childhood.
... According to Kerig et al. [30], children who grow up in dysfunctional homes may learn to deal with trauma by emotionally withdrawing, a strategy that may encourage the emergence of CU traits. The previous literature also robustly links CU traits to behavioral problems, such as behaviors that externalize and internalize problems, during early childhood [31][32][33]. Because CU traits are shown to be related to both aggressive parenting and behavioral problems, CU traits may act as a mediator between these two factors. ...
Article
Full-text available
It is well known that aggressive parenting is associated with behavioral problems among Western children in their early childhood, but this has rarely been examined among Chinese preschoolers. The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between aggressive parenting, callous–unemotional traits (CU traits), and behavioral problems among a large Chinese preschool sample. Data were collected in Wuhu city, China, from 1879 preschoolers (54% of whom were male) with a mean age of 65.66 months (standard deviation = 9.41). Parents provided information about the frequency of aggressive parenting, children’s behaviors, and demographic characteristics via an online questionnaire. Mediation models were applied to analyze the associations between aggressive parenting, CU traits, and behavioral problems. Preschoolers’ age, gender, and family socioeconomic status were considered as covariates. The findings of our study revealed that higher frequencies of parental psychological and physical aggression were associated with high levels of CU traits, which were related to increased levels of preschoolers’ behavioral problems. This study extends previous studies by revealing a positive relationship between aggressive parenting and behavioral problems among Chinese preschoolers via CU traits and highlights the risks of aggressive parenting. Interventions for improving parenting strategies and lessening callous–unemotional traits should be developed to help reduce behavioral problems.
Article
Full-text available
Objective: The presence of callous–unemotional (CU) traits in adolescence predisposes youth to negative behavioral and social outcomes and may be particularly damaging to youth involved in the justice system. Whereas research has shown that CU traits predict later arrest, it remains unknown whether rearrest predicts changes in CU traits and whether these associations may be modified by maternal relationship quality. The present study assessed whether being rearrested predicted changes in CU traits and whether these associations varied by maternal warmth and maternal hostility. Hypotheses: We hypothesized that self-reported CU traits would increase at data collection time points following rearrest. Further, we hypothesized that maternal warmth would buffer the negative effects of rearrest, whereas maternal hostility would not have a significant moderating effect on the associations. Method: Hypotheses were tested using a large, multisite longitudinal data set of 1,216 justice-involved male youth (Mage = 15.82 years at baseline; 47% Latino, 38% Black/African American, 15% White). Data from a series of nine interviews (across a 7-year period) were used to determine associations between rearrest at one-time point and CU traits at the subsequent time point. Results: Rearrest is associated with a significant increase in CU traits. However, these associations are not moderated by either maternal warmth or maternal hostility. Conclusions: Rearrest predicts increases in a known risk factor for healthy socioemotional development among justice-involved youths (CU traits). Moreover, the way rearrest is associated with CU traits does not change depending on maternal warmth; rearrest is associated with increases in CU traits irrespective of the quality of a youth’s relationship with their mother.
Article
Full-text available
There has been a growing interest in research examining the relationship between parenting and child callous-unemotional (CU) traits, particularly in early childhood. This study reviewed evidence from studies that investigated the relationship between parenting characteristics (e.g., caregiving beliefs, attitudes, behaviour or quality, or parental mental health) and callous-unemotional traits in children aged 0 to 6 years. A systematic search conducted according to PRISMA guidelines yielded 27 peer-reviewed articles. Analysis of the included articles suggested that there was strong evidence to support links between child CU traits and parenting characteristics (particularly, parental feelings about their child, warm parenting, and harsh/ inconsistent parenting). Taken together, the results of this review demonstrate the links between both positive and negative dimensions of parenting and CU traits in early childhood; however, mixed findings highlight the need for further research.
Article
Importance Children with high callous-unemotional traits are more likely to develop severe and persistent conduct problems; however, the newborn neurobiology underlying early callous-unemotional traits remains unknown. Understanding the neural mechanisms that precede the development of callous-unemotional traits could help identify at-risk children and encourage development of novel treatments. Objective To determine whether newborn brain function is associated with early-emerging empathy, prosociality, and callous-unemotional traits. Design, Setting, and Participants In this prospective, longitudinal cohort study, pregnant women were recruited from obstetric clinics in St Louis, Missouri, from September 1, 2017, to February 28, 2020, with longitudinal data collected until March 20, 2023. Mothers were recruited during pregnancy. Newborns underwent brain magnetic resonance imaging shortly after birth. Mothers completed longitudinal follow-up when the children were aged 1, 2, and 3 years. Exposures The sample was enriched for exposure to socioeconomic disadvantage. Main Outcome and Measure Functional connectivity between hypothesized brain regions was assessed using newborn-specific networks and voxel-based connectivity analyses. Children’s callous-unemotional traits were measured using the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits. Empathy and prosociality were assessed using the Infant and Toddler Socio-Emotional Assessment. Results A total of 283 children (mean [SD] gestational age, 38 [2] weeks; 159 male [56.2%]; 2 Asian [0.7%], 171 Black [60%], 7 Hispanic or Latino [2.5%], 106 White [38%], 4 other racial or ethnic group [1.4%]) were included in the analysis. Stronger newborn functional connectivity between the cingulo-opercular network (CO) and medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) was associated with higher callous-unemotional traits at age 3 years (β = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.17-0.41; P < .001). Results persisted when accounting for parental callous-unemotional traits and child externalizing symptoms. Stronger newborn CO-mPFC connectivity was also associated with lower empathy and lower prosociality at ages 1, 2, and 3 years using multilevel models (β = −0.12; 95% CI, −0.21 to −0.04; P = .004 and β = −0.20; 95% CI, −0.30 to −0.10; P < .001, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance Newborn functional connectivity was associated with early-emerging empathy, prosociality, and callous-unemotional traits, even when accounting for parental callous-unemotional traits and child externalizing symptoms. Understanding the neurobiological underpinnings of empathy, prosociality, and callous-unemotional traits at the earliest developmental point may help early risk stratification and novel intervention development.
Article
Full-text available
Understanding the developmental psychopathology of child conduct problems (CP) has been advanced by differentiating subtypes based on levels of internalizing problems (INT) and/or callous-unemotional (CU) traits (i.e., low empathy/guilt, poor motivation, shallow/deficient affect). The current study sought to elucidate prior inconsistencies in the role of warm/positive and harsh/negative parenting subcomponents in CP by differentiating subtypes on the basis of INT and CU traits. Parents of 135 young children (M age = 4.21 years, SD = 1.29) referred to specialty clinics for the treatment of CP completed pre-treatment measures of parenting and rated their child's levels of CP, INT, and CU traits. Results of planned comparisons revealed that mothers of children classified as secondary CU variants (high CU/ high INT) reported fewer overall warm attributions toward their child, compared with CP-only (low CU) children. They also reported a more negative dyadic relationship characterized by feelings of anger/hostility, active avoidance and/or a desire to do harm to their child relative to primary CU variants (high CU/ low INT). Mothers of primary CU variants attributed fewer good and altruistic intentions towards others in their child, relative to CP-only children. Subtypes were undifferentiated on observed positive and negative parenting behaviors, indicative of a disconnect between parenting behaviors and cognitions for mothers of children high on CU traits. Findings are discussed in relation to their theoretical and practice implications, and in guiding future research.
Article
Background: Great attention has been attached to the quality of nursing along with the development of medical treatment, which gives rise to the higher demand for colleges to cultivate high-quality nursing students, as well as the higher standard for teaching performance of the nursing faculty. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the effect of teachers' job burnout on teaching ability among nursing teachers in Chinese colleges and to examine the mediating role of social support in this relationship based on the Person-context interaction theory. Design: A cross-sectional descriptive design has been adopted. Methods: From February to June 2021, a total of 416 Chinese nursing teachers from 27 colleges filled out the questionnaires with a response rate of 97.42%. The questionnaire included general demographic questionnaire, teaching ability in nursing scale, teacher burnout scale and social support scale. The data were analyzed by SPSS26.0 statistical software in terms of Pearson's correlation the Structural Equation Model (SEM) was adopted to test the mediating effect of social support between job burnout and teaching ability in nursing of nursing teachers using Mplus 8.3. Results: Job burnout of nursing teachers was negatively and significantly correlated with the teaching ability in nursing and social support (p < 0.01). And Structural Equation Model results showed that social support mediated the relationship between teacher burnout and teaching ability in nursing. Conclusions: Social support could help nursing teachers manage their job burnout, and eventually help them overcome the negative impact of teachers' job burnout on teaching ability in nursing. Social support could promote the teaching ability of nursing teachers by playing an intermediary role between them.[Box: see text].
Article
Full-text available
The present study applied a semiparametric mixture model to a sample of 284 low-income boys to model developmental trajectories of overt conduct problems from ages 2 to 8. As in research on older children, 4 developmental trajectories were identified: a persistent problem trajectory, a high-level desister trajectory, a moderate-level desister trajectory, and a persistent low trajectory. Follow-up analyses indicated that initially high and low groups were differentiated in early childhood by high child fearlessness and elevated maternal depressive symptomatology. Persistent problem and high desister trajectories were differentiated by high child fearlessness and maternal rejecting parenting. The implications of the results for early intervention research are discussed, with an emphasis on the identification of at-risk parent - child dyads.
Article
Full-text available
Seven hundred thirty-one income-eligible families in 3 geographical regions who were enrolled in a national food supplement program were screened and randomized to a brief family intervention. At child ages 2 and 3, the intervention group caregivers were offered the Family Check-Up and linked parenting support services. Latent growth models on caregiver reports at child ages 2, 3, and 4 revealed decreased behavior problems when compared with the control group. Intervention effects occurred predominantly among families reporting high levels of problem behavior at child age 2. Families in the intervention condition improved on direct observation measures of caregivers' positive behavior support at child ages 2 and 3; improvements in positive behavior support mediated improvements in children's early problem behavior.
Article
Full-text available
Human social interaction is strongly shaped by other-regarding preferences. These preferences are key for a unique aspect of human sociality – large scale cooperation with genetic strangers – but little is known about their developmental roots. We show here that young children’s other-regarding preferences assume a particular form – inequality aversion – that develops strongly between the ages of 3 and 8. At age 3-4, the overwhelming majority of children behave selfishly, while the vast majority at age 7-8 prefers resource allocations that remove advantageous or disadvantageous inequality. Moreover, inequality aversion is strongly shaped by parochialism, a preference for favouring the members of one’s own social group. These results indicate that human egalitarianism and parochialism have deep developmental roots, and the simultaneous emergence of altruistic sharing and parochialism during childhood is intriguing in view of recent evolutionary theories which predict that the same evolutionary process jointly drives both human altruism and parochialism.
Article
Full-text available
The presence of callous-unemotional (CU) traits delineates a subgroup of youth with severe antisocial behavior. However, debate surrounds the best method to assess CU traits. This study examined the factor structure of the parent-reported Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (ICU) among high-risk 9-year-olds (N = 540) and its predictive validity over 1 year. Confirmatory factor analysis showed support for a three-factor bifactor model and revised two-factor model using a shortened ICU. Within a three-factor bifactor framework the general CU traits factor and specific uncaring factor scores were related to higher externalizing and lower internalizing behavior problems at ages 9.5 and 10.5. Findings were replicated using teacher-reported outcomes. However, results also suggest the need for item refinement and highlight the utility of a two-factor solution using a shortened ICU. In particular, the meaning of the unemotional items is discussed in relation to the conceptualization of CU traits.
Article
Full-text available
This study sought to replicate the results of our earlier study, which were published in this Journal (Willoughby et. al 2011), that used mother-reported items from the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment to develop a screening measure of callous unemotional (CU) behaviors for use with preschool-aged children. We further sought to extend those results by exploring the predictive validity of the CU measure with aggression trajectories in early-/mid-childhood. The current study involved secondary data analysis of the NICHD Study of Early Childhood and Youth Development (NICHD-SECCYD) dataset. Factor analyses included N = 1176 children who participated in the age 3 year assessment of the NICHD-SECCYD. Predictive models included N = 1081 children for whom four of the six possible teacher ratings of aggressive behavior were available from annual assessments spanning 1(st)-6(th) grades. Consistent with prior work, a three-factor confirmatory factor model, which differentiated CU from oppositional defiant (ODD) and attention deficit/hyperactive-impulsive (ADHD) behaviors, provided the best fit to the data. Among children with disorganized attachment status, the combination of high levels of mother-rated ODD behaviors and CU behaviors, was predictive of stable elevated levels of teacher-rated aggression from 1(st)-6(th) grade (predicted probability = .38, compared with a base rate of .07). These results demonstrate that CU behaviors can be reliably measured by parent report in young children and are dissociable from more commonly assessed dimensions of disruptive behavior. Three-year-old children who exhibit elevated levels of ODD and CU behaviors, and who have disorganized attachments, are at increased risk for exhibiting elevated levels of aggression across middle childhood. Results are discussed from the perspective of early assessment and intervention.
Article
Full-text available
The current paper reviews extant literature on the intersection between poverty and the development of conduct problems (CP) in early childhood. Associations between exposure to poverty and disruptive behavior are reviewed through the framework of models emphasizing how the stressors associated with poverty indirectly influence child CP by compromising parent psychological resources, investments in children's welfare, and/or caregiving quality. We expand on the best-studied model, the family stress model, by emphasizing the mediating contribution of parent psychological resources on children's risk for early CP, in addition to the mediating effects of parenting. Specifically, we focus on the contribution of maternal depression, in terms of both compromising parenting quality and exposing children to higher levels of stressful events and contexts. Implications of the adapted family stress model are then discussed in terms of its implications for the prevention and treatment of young children's emerging CP. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Clinical Psychology Volume 10 is March 20, 2014. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/catalog/pubdates.aspx for revised estimates.
Article
In this chapter an ecological framework is proposed for understanding the development of individual differences in aggression and violence from childhood to adulthood. The model is based on three organizing hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that aversive social behaviors and threats can function to “coerce” the immediate social environment (i.e., microdynamics) such that aggressive behavior is strengthened over time (Patterson, 1982). The second hypothesis is that some aggressive individuals join within social networks; as such, aggression amplifies in lethality and frequency through social contagion dynamics (i.e., macrodynamics) and then culminates in violence (Dishion & Tipsord, 2011). The third hypothesis is that aggression and violence are predictable and preventable and that interventions that target the key micro- and macrodynamic social processes relevant to each developmental period can reduce individual levels of aggression and prevalence of aggression and violence in the community (Biglan, 2003). In this chapter, each hypothesis is discussed in the context of developmental patterns of aggression and violence.
Article
Key to understanding the long-term impact of social inequalities is identifying early behaviors that may signal higher risk for later poor psychosocial outcomes, such as psychopathology. A set of early-emerging characteristics that may signal risk for later externalizing psychopathology is Callous-Unemotional (CU) behavior. CU behavior predict severe and chronic trajectories of externalizing behaviors in youth. However, much research on CU behavior has focused on late childhood and adolescence, with little attention paid to early childhood when preventative interventions may be most effective. In this paper, we summarize our recent work showing that: (1) CU behavior can be identified in early childhood using items from common behavior checklists; (2) CU behavior predicts worse outcomes across early childhood; (3) CU behavior exhibits a distinct nomological network from other early externalizing behaviors; and (4) malleable environmental factors, particularly parenting, may play a role in the development of early CU behaviors. We discuss the challenges of studying contextual contributors to the development of CU behavior in terms of gene-environment correlations and present initial results from work examining CU behavior in an adoption study in which gene-environment correlations are examined in early childhood. We find that parenting is a predictor of early CU behavior even in a sample in which parents are not genetically related to the children. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Article
Interest in the problem of method biases has a long history in the behavioral sciences. Despite this, a comprehensive summary of the potential sources of method biases and how to control for them does not exist. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to examine the extent to which method biases influence behavioral research results, identify potential sources of method biases, discuss the cognitive processes through which method biases influence responses to measures, evaluate the many different procedural and statistical techniques that can be used to control method biases, and provide recommendations for how to select appropriate procedural and statistical remedies for different types of research settings.
Article
Background Early-starting child conduct problems (CP) are linked to the development of persistent antisocial behavior. Researchers have theorized multiple pathways to CP and that CP comprise separable domains, marked by callous-unemotional (CU) behavior, oppositional behavior, or ADHD symptoms. However, a lack of empirical evidence exists from studies that have examined whether there are unique correlates of these domains.Methods We examined differential correlates of CU, oppositional, and ADHD behaviors during the preschool years to test their potentially distinct nomological networks. Multimethod data, including parent and teacher reports and observations of child behavior, were drawn from a prospective, longitudinal study of children assessed at age 3 and age 6 (N = 240; 48% female).ResultsDimensions of CU, oppositional, and ADHD behaviors were separable within Confirmatory Factor Analyses across mother and father reports. There were differential associations between CU, oppositional, and ADHD behaviors and socioemotional, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes: CU behavior was uniquely related to lower moral regulation, guilt, and empathy. ADHD was uniquely related to lower attentional focusing and observed effortful control. Finally, CU behavior uniquely predicted increases in teacher-reported externalizing from ages 3–6 over and above covariates, and ADHD and oppositional behavior.Conclusions Consistent with theory, dimensions of CU, ADHD, and oppositional behavior demonstrated separable nomological networks representing separable facets within early-starting CP.