Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology ISSN: 1537-4416 (Print) 1537-4424 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcap20 Assessing Callous-Unemotional Traits in Preschool Children With Disruptive Behavior Problems Using Peer Reports Paulo A. Graziano, Rosmary Ros, Sarah Haas, Katie Hart, Janine Slavec, Daniel Waschbusch & Alexis Garcia To cite this article: Paulo A. Graziano, Rosmary Ros, Sarah Haas, Katie Hart, Janine Slavec, Daniel Waschbusch & Alexis Garcia (2016) Assessing Callous-Unemotional Traits in Preschool Children With Disruptive Behavior Problems Using Peer Reports, Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 45:2, 201-214, DOI: 10.1080/15374416.2014.971460 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2014.971460 Published online: 14 Jan 2015. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 177 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hcap20 Download by: [Florida International University] Date: 01 April 2016, At: 12:48 JournalofClinicalChild&AdolescentPsychology,45(2),201–214,2016 Copyright#Taylor&FrancisGroup,LLC ISSN:1537-4416print=1537-4424online DOI:10.1080/15374416.2014.971460 Assessing Callous-Unemotional Traits in Preschool Children With Disruptive Behavior Problems Using Peer Reports Paulo A. Graziano and Rosmary Ros Department of Psychology, Florida International University Sarah Haas 6 Department of Psychology, University of Buffalo 1 0 2 ril Katie Hart p A Department of Psychology, Florida International University 1 0 8 Janine Slavec 4 2: 1 Department of Psychology, University of Maine at ] sity Daniel Waschbusch r e DivisionofChildandAdolescentPsychiatry,PennStateMiltonS.HersheyMedicalCenter v ni U al Alexis Garcia n o Department of Psychology, Florida International University ati n r e nt I da Thegoalofthisstudywastoexaminetheextenttowhichpreschoolerswithexternaliz- ori ing behavior problems (EBP) can identify behaviors indicative of callous-unemotional Fl (CU)traitsamongtheirpeers.Participantsforthisstudyincluded86preschoolchildren [ y (69%boys;M ¼5.07years)withat-riskorclinicallyelevatedlevelsofEBPwhowere b age d attendingasummertreatmentcamp.Datacollectedfromthechildren,theirpeers,and e d the counselors whoworkedat thesummer campexaminedpreschoolers’ social prefer- a o ence, likability, and behaviors indicative of CU. Parents and preschool teachers also nl w reportedonchildren’sCUtraitsandseverityofbehavioralimpairment,aswellasschool o D readiness. Peer nominations of CU traits showed (a) excellent factor structure as evi- dencedbyclearCUitems(e.g.,‘‘don’tfeelbadwhentheydosomethingwrong’’)versus moreprosocialitems(‘‘share,’’‘‘cooperate’’);(b)moderateconstructvaliditywhencom- paredtocounselorreportsoftheCUfactoraswellaspreschoolteacherreportedratings ofCUtraitsandseverityofbehavioralimpairment;and(c)goodutilityasevidencedby associationswithpeerandcounselorratedsocialpreference,likability,andschoolreadi- nessmeasuresasratedbybothparentsandpreschoolteachers.Thesefindingsindicate thatasearlyaspreschool,childrenwithEBPcanidentifypeerswhoengageinbehaviors indicative of CU traits, which have significant implications for children’s social status andoverall school readiness. Children with conduct problems (CP), commonly identified as either having oppositional defiant disorder CorrespondenceshouldbeaddressedtoPauloA.Graziano,Center (ODD) or conduct disorder (CD; Diagnostic and Statis- forChildrenandFamilies&DepartmentofPsychology,FloridaInter- tical Manual of Mental Disorders [4th ed., text rev.; nationalUniversity,11200SW8thStreet,AHC4Room459,Miami, FL33199.E-mail:pgrazian@fiu.edu DSM-IV-TR], American Psychiatric Association, 2000), 202 GRAZIANOETAL. compriseabout 5%–10% of youth ages 8–16 (Costello & (Waschbusch, Carrey, Willoughby, King, & Andrade, Angold, 2000). Prevalence of CP is even higher in pre- 2007)and lessimprovementinsocialskillsandproblem- school populations ranging from 7% to 25% (Webster- solving skills when compared to children with CP alone Stratton&Hammond,1998).Amajorityofchildrenwith (Haas et al., 2011). Hawes and Dadds (2005) also found CP also meet diagnostic criteria for attention-deficit= that boys with CU and ODD displayed lower treatment hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; Loeber, Green, Keenan, response to behavioral parent training and were parti- & Lahey, 1995). Children with CP experience a variety cularly less responsive to time-outs. Furthermore, the of negative outcomes including academic underachieve- presence of CU traits places children at increased risk ment (see Hinshaw, 1992, for a review), difficulties with for delinquency in adolescence (Pardini, 2006; Pardini, social interactions (Coolahan, Fantuzzo, Mendez, & Obradovic, & Loeber, 2006) and continued use of McDermott, 2000; Wehby, Dodge, & Valente, 1993), antisocialbehaviorinadulthood(Lynametal.,2009). and increased risk for delinquency (Lahey et al., 2006; seeMurray&Farrington,2010, for a review).Given the negative outcomes associated with CP, additional costs CU TRAITS IN PRESCHOOLERS forachildwithCPexceed$70,000withina7-yearperiod (Foster & Jones, 2005). These costs heighten the need to Few studies have examined the role of CU traits in 6 1 understandtheriskand protective factorsthatshape the preschoolers, although initial evidence suggests that as 0 2 course of CP and mechanisms by which later outcomes youngasage3,measurementsofcallousnessarepredictive ril arepredicted. of later ODD and CD diagnoses (Ezpeleta, de la Osa, p A Althoughnumerousriskfactorshavebeenrecognized Granero, Penelo, & Dome`nech, 2013) and are separate 1 0 as important for understanding the development of from general symptoms of externalizing behavior prob- 8 4 antisocial=aggressive behavior, more recent research has lems (Willoughby et al., 2011). In addition, preschoolers 2: 1 highlighted the importance of callous-unemotional (CU) who are temperamentally characterized as behaviorally at traits, which refer to low levels of guilt, empathy, and uninhibited (i.e., low on fearfulness and avoidance of ] sity caringforothers(Frick,Ray,Thornton,&Kahn,2014). novel,strange,orthreateningstimuli;Kochanska,Gross, r Itisimportant tonote that CU traitsrepresent onlyone Lin, & Nichols, 2002) display lower levels of guilt and e v ni dimensionofthebroaderconstructofpsychopathy,which empathy (Cornell & Frick, 2007), which are associated U also includes narcissism, fearless dominance, and withincreasedlevelsofdisruptivebehaviors(Kochanska, nal behavioral disinhibition marked by impulsive-antisocial Barry,Jimenez,Hollatz,&Woodard,2009)andpredictive o ati behavior (see Frick et al., 2014; Patrick, 2010, for a of current and later childhood aggression (Findlay, rn review). Psychopathy research examining downward Girardi, & Coplan, 2006; Gower & Crick, 2011; Raine, e nt extensions of CU traits to child samples have indeed Reynolds, Venables, Mednick, & Farrington, 1998). The I a confirmed that children with CU traits, in addition to dimensionsofCUtraits(i.e.,lowlevelsofguilt,empathy, d ri CP, display characteristics analogous to those of adult caring) and fearlessness (marked by a behaviorally unin- o Fl psychopathy,includingdisregardforfearandpunishment hibitedtemperament)havealsobeenfoundtoseparately [ y andincreasedaggression(C.T.Barryetal.,2000;Pardini, predict aggressive behavior (Kimonis et al., 2006), thus b d 2006).YoungchildrenwithODDandelevatedCUtraits further highlighting the discriminability of the CU e ad are also more likely to have temperamental profiles constructinyoungchildren. o nl markedbyfearlessnessandarelesslikelytobecomeupset The factor structure of CU traits themselves has also w o (measured during a Face-to-Face Still Face task both received significant attention. Initial theoretical and D behaviorally and by cardiac response) compared to both empiricalworkontheInventoryofCallous-Unemotional children with pure ODD and healthy controls Traits (ICU; Frick, 2004) suggested a bifactor model, (Willoughby, Waschbusch, Moore, & Propper, 2011). which included a general CU factor on which all items Substantialresearchhasfocusedonexamining CU traits loadedandthreespecificfactors,consistingofcallousness, as an important characteristic for identifying the most uncaring, and lack of emotionality (Essau, Sasagawa, & pervasive, severe, and aggressive patterns of antisocial Frick, 2006; Ezpeleta et al., 2013; Kimonis et al., 2008). behavior(seeFricketal.,2014,forarecentreview). However, as reviewed by Willoughby, Mills-Koonce, Children with CU traits and CP experience more Waschbusch, and Gottfredson (2014), a source of theor- aggressive, pervasive, and disruptive behaviors across etical and practical importance is whether prosocial age groups (Enebrink, Andershed, & La¨ngstro¨m, 2005; behaviors, which can be defined as voluntary actions Hawes & Dadds, 2005; Lynam, Miller, Vachon, Loeber, taken for the benefit of others and can include dimen- & Stouthamer-Loeber, 2009). In a school-aged sample sions such as helping, sharing, or expressing concern of children enrolled in a summer treatment program for and support (Eisenberg, 1986), should be part of a gen- externalizing behavior problems, children with CP and eral CU factor. For example, low ratings on prosocial CU demonstrated diminished overall treatment response items is how the ICU measures the Uncaring scale that CUPEERREPORTS 203 is often included in the general CU factor. However, callousness, versus those behaviors indicative of low recently with a large sample size of first graders, levels of prosocial behaviors. Some studies have inte- Willoughbyetal.(2014)foundevidenceforatwo-factor grated low levels of prosocial skills as either part of a model distinguishing the presence of callous behaviors greater CU traits factor (Dadds et al., 2005) or a proxy versus the presence of empathic–prosocial behaviors. for CU traits (Musser, Galloway-Long, Frick, & Nigg, It remains unclear the extent to which such callous 2013).Ashighlightedearlier,therearesignificanttheor- traits versus poor prosocial skills can be differentiated etical and practical implications for establishing a inpreschoolers. distinction between callous behaviors and prosocial behaviors when discussing CU traits. Hence, examining this topic within a preschool sample while using peer MEASUREMENT OF CU TRAITS data may provide more insight into the early development of CU traits and whether such traits are GiventhestabilityofCUtraitsanddeleteriousoutcomes distinguishable from low levels of prosocial skills. just reviewed, it is imperative to determine the optimal Lastly, academic underachievement has also been way to identify CU traits in preschoolers. Although associated with CU traits (Ciucci, Baroncelli, Franchi, studiesdemonstratethevalidityofCUtraitsasadistinct Golmaryami, & Frick, 2013; Vaughn et al., 2011), 6 1 construct apart from other externalizing behaviors although research has been limited by examination of 0 2 (Dadds, Fraser, Frost, & Hawes, 2005; Frick et al., CUtraitsandacademicsonlyinschool-agedpopulations. ril 2014), the majority of research relies on parent, teacher, Giventhatschoolreadinessisabroaderconstructaccount- p A and self-report measures (Antisocial Process Screening ing for academic, behavioral, and socioemotional readi- 1 0 Device [APSD]; Frick & Hare, 2001; Psychopathy ness for school, examining the role of CU traits in early 8 4 Checklist, Forth, Kosson, & Hare, 2003). Studies on schoolreadinessmayyieldgreaterinsightstobetterident- 2: 1 the internal consistency of CU traits reveal limitations ifyandaddresstheneedsofthishigh-riskgroupearlyon. at in the psychometric properties of the APSD for ] sity measuring CU traits (Dong, Wu, & Waldman, 2014; r Poythress et al., 2006). Although the development of GOALS OF THE CURRENT STUDY e v ni the ICU (Frick, 2004) has improved the measurement U of CU traits, it is limited to parent, teacher, and The goal of this study was to examine (a) whether pre- nal self-reportmeasures.Inaddition,asreviewedearlier,dis- school children with externalizing behavior problems o ati tinguishing callous behaviors from the presence of more (EBP), who were attending a summer treatment camp, rn prosocial behaviors continues to be a source of debate. couldidentifypeerswhoengagedinbehaviorsindicative e nt The use of peer data may be especially valuable for ofCUtraitsversusthosesimplyengagedinlowlevelsof I a understanding the social deficits associated with CU prosocial behaviors and (b) whether such peer nomina- d ri traits (Barry, Barry, Deming, & Lochman, 2008; Frick tions of CU traits were associated with adult ratings o Fl & Dantagnan,2005) andhow peers perceive suchtraits. (counselors, teachers, and parents) of CU traits and [ y Few studies have examined the link between CU traits severityofbehavioralimpairment.Finally,itwasimpor- b d and sociometric measures of social competence. In con- tant to determine not just whether CU traits relate to e ad trast to Haas et al. (2011) finding that CP alone, not schoolreadinessoutcomes,butalsowhetherpeernomi- o nl CU, was predictive of peer rejection, Piatigorsky and nations of CU traits offer any unique information w o Hinshaw (2004) found that psychopathy dimension toward the association of such outcomes after account- D scoresindicativeofCUtraitswereassociatedwithnega- ing for the more easily obtained parent and=or teacher tive peer nominations. In addition, peer-rated social reports. Data were collected from the children, their standing and preference are related to CU traits (T. D. peers, and the counselors who worked at the summer Barry et al., 2008). These findings suggest that children camp to measure preschoolers’ social preference and with CU traits are perceived negatively by school-aged likability, prosocial skills, and behaviors indicative of peers.However,asignificantgapintheliteratureremains CU through nominations. Parents and teachers also intermsofwhetheryoungerpreschoolchildren,whocan filled out rating scales regarding children’s CU traits, report valid sociometric ratings that are comparable severityofbehavioralimpairment,andschoolreadiness. to teacher reports of social competence (Denham & Weexpectedthat(a)preschoolchildrenwithEBPwould McKinley, 1993; Renk & Phares, 2004), can also detect be able to differentiate peers who engage in behaviors traitsindicativeofCUandwhetherthesetraitsarerelated indicativeofCUtraitsversussimplylowprosocialskills, totheirsocialpreferenceandlikeabilityratings. (b) such ratings would significantly correlate with adult In addition, no research, regardless of children’s ratings, and (c) peer nominations of CU traits would age, has examined whether peers can differentially provideuniqueinformationtowardtheassociationwith report on behaviors indicative of CU traits, specifically schoolreadiness,evenaftercontrollingforadultratings, 204 GRAZIANOETAL. suchthatthosewhowerereportedashavinghigherrates the study. The mean age of the participating children of CU traits would be reported by parents and teachers was 5.07 years with Hollingshead socioeconomic status as being less ready to succeed in school. (SES) scores in the lower to middle-class range (M¼42.95,SD¼13.12).Furtherdemographiccharacter- isticsofthissamplearepresentedinTable1.Accordingto METHOD the Computerized Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (C-DISC; Shaffer, Fisher, Lucas, Dulcan, & Participants and Recruitment Schwab-Stone, 2000), which was conducted by mental The study took place in a large urban southeastern city health graduate students under the supervision of a in the United States with a large Latino population. licensed psychologist, 47% of children met DSM-IV Children and their caregivers were recruited from local criteriaforbothADHDandODD,whereasanadditional preschool and mental health agencies via brochures, 34% met criteria for ADHD only. Only one child was radio and newspaper ads, and open houses=parent takingastimulantmedicationduringthestudy. workshops. Interested parents were asked to call or speak with study staff to have the study explained to Study Design and Procedure them and to complete screening questions to determine 6 1 eligibility. Participants were required to (a) have an Thisstudywasapprovedbytheuniversity’sInstitutional 0 pril 2 eoxntertnhaelizpinagrepnrtob(lMem¼s6co6.m21p,osiStDet¼sc1o3r.e30o)f6o0rorteaabcohveer RasesvesieswmeBnotasrcdh.eAdlullfeadmpilrieiosrpatortitchipeastetadritnoafptrheetrseuatmmmenert A 1 (M¼67.12, SD¼13.89) Behavior Assessment System treatment program. The feasibility and effectiveness of 8 0 for Children, Second Edition (BASC-2; Reynolds & providing a summer treatment program intervention 2:4 Kamphaus, 2006), (b) be enrolled in preschool during forprekindergarteners(STP-PreK)toimprovepreschoo- 1 the previous year, (c) have an estimated IQ of 70 or lers with EBP’s school readiness outcomes has been ] at higher (M¼91.19), (d) have no confirmed history of reported elsewhere (Graziano et al., 2014). For this sity autistic or psychotic disorder, and (e) be able to attend study, we were interested in examining the extent to er an8-weeksummerprogrampriortothestartofthepre- whichchildreninthecampcouldidentifypeerswhowere v ni school or kindergarten year (see Graziano et al., 2014 engaginginbehaviorsindicativeofCUtraits.Aspartof U nal fsocrreeanedfuolultddeusecrtioptnioont)m. eTetwinegnttyh-efoiunrclufsaiomnilicersiterwiaer.e tCh-eDIpSrCetr(eSahtamffeenrtetaasls.e,s2s0m0e0n)ta,ndpavraerniotsuscqoumepstlieotnednaitrhees o ati Thefinalparticipatingsampleconsistedof86preschool regarding their children’s school readiness. Only one rn children(69%boys)withat-riskorclinicallyelevatedlevels parent from each family was required to complete ques- e nt of EBP whose parents provided consent to participate in tionnaires for each child. Other than receiving the inter- I a vention at either no cost via a federal grant or at a d ri TABLE1 subsidizedcostviaa localgrant,familiesdidnotreceive o Fl DemographicsforSample any additional compensation for completing question- [ y naires at the pretreatment assessment. Similar question- b Characteristic %inSample d naires were also obtained from children’s preschool e ad ChildRace=Ethnicity(%) teachers, who were compensated with a $25 gift card. o Non-HispanicWhite 11.9 nl w AfricanAmerican 5.9 Do Latino 77.1 Peer and Counselor Nominations Other 5.1 FamilyStatus(%) During the last week of the 8-week camp, children indi- IntactTwo-ParentHousehold 63.4 vidually participated in an assessment of peer-reported LivingWithaPartner 4.9 behavior and peer status following Coie, Dodge, and SingleParentHousehold–Divorced=Separated 18.8 Coppotelli’s (1983) procedure. As typically done with SingleParentHousehold–NeverMarried 10.9 SingleParentHousehold–Widowed 2.0 younger children, pictures of classmates were used as ReporterofQuestionnaires promptsduringtheinterviewtoaidingatheringreliable MothersOnly 89.1 peer-report data. Children were individually presented FathersOnly 4.0 withcolorpicturesofeachoftheirclassmatesandasked MothersandFathersJointly 5.9 to choose the three kids in the classroom they liked the Other(Grandmother) 1.0 Referredfrom(%) most and the three kids in the classroom they liked the Self-Referred 32.6 least. Children also rated every classmate, according to Preschool 25.6 procedures developed by Asher, Singleton, Tinsley, Physician=MentalHealthProfessional 27.8 and Hymel (1979), by pointing to a happy face (‘‘chil- Friends 14.0 drenyoulike a lot’’),a neutral face (‘‘children you kind CUPEERREPORTS 205 oflike’’),orasadface(‘‘childrenyoudon’tlike’’).Last, Screening Measures followingproceduresfrom Keane andCalkins (2004)in Externalizing behavior problems. To assess chil- nominating classmates for behavioral categories, children’s behavioral functioning, parents and teachers dren were asked to pick the three kids in the classroom completed the BASC-2 (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004). who (a) ‘‘don’t feel bad when they do something TheBASC-2isawidelyusedbehaviorchecklistthattaps wrong,’’ (b) ‘‘don’t care if they get into trouble,’’ (c) emotionalandbehavioraldomainsofchildren’sfunction- ‘‘enjoysbeingmean,’’(d)‘‘aresneaky,’’(e)‘‘liketohelp ing.EachitemontheBASC-2isratedona4-pointscale and cooperate,’’ (f) ‘‘share the most,’’ and (g) ‘‘ignore withrespecttothe frequencyofoccurrence(never,some- mean or bad things done to them and ask for help times,often,andalmostalways).Themeasureyieldsscores nicely.’’ Of note, children during the STP-PreK were onbroadinternalizing,externalizing,andbehaviorsymp- encouraged not to retaliate against negative actions tomdomainsaswellasspecificadaptive=socialfunction- from peers and instead ignore without whining and ing skills scales. The BASC-2 has well-established appropriately seek help from the counselors. internalconsistency,reliability,andvalidity(Reynolds& Behavioral categories consistent with CU traits Kamphaus,2004). For the purposes of thisstudy and as (‘‘don’t feel bad when they do something wrong’’ and theprimaryscreeningmeasure,theexternalizingbehavior ‘‘don’t care if they get into trouble’’) were created based 6 problemcomposite t scoreswereused(as forparentand 1 ontheICU(Frick,2004).‘‘Enjoybeingmean’’wasadded 0 teacherreports¼.65(cid:2).80). 2 asabehavioralcategoryindicativeofCUduetothecon- ril struct of meanness being part of the triarchic model of Ap Intelligence. For screening purposes, children were psychopathy (Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009) and 1 administeredtheVocabularyandBlockDesignsubtests 0 equated with callousness in children (Patrick, 2010). 8 of the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelli- 4 ‘‘Are sneaky’’ was also added given previous research 2: gence–Third or Fourth Edition (Wechsler, 2002, 2012). 1 usingthisitemasameasureofdeceitfulnessloadingonto at a factor of CU traits (Hyde et al., 2013). Behavior cate- These two subtests are useful for rapid screening and ] arereliableinestimatingchildren’sFullScaleIQ(Sattler sity gories indicative of prosocial skills (‘‘like to help and & Dumont, 2004). r cooperate,’’ ‘‘share the most,’’ and ‘‘ignore mean or bad e v Uni thingsdonetothemandaskforhelpnicely’’)werechosen Measures giventhattheseweretheskillsthatchildrenwereencour- nal aged to use throughout the summer camp program. Peer status and behavioralnominations. Thetotal o ati Given the young age of the participants, sample items number of peer and counselor nominations each child rn (e.g.,‘‘Show methree kids thathave blondehair.’’)were received was calculated and standardized within each e nt used.Procedureswereexplainedandchildrenwereasked classroom in order to derive z scores representing the I a sampleitemsuntiltheyappearedtounderstandthetask. number of ‘‘like least’’ and ‘‘like most’’ nominations. d ri Interviewers consisted of graduate students who were The standardized ‘‘like least’’ nominations were o Fl rigorously trained on procedures to ensure quality data subtracted from the standardized ‘‘like most nomina- [ y collection.Scriptsdetailingspecificexamplesofthebeha- tions,’’ then restandardized to generate a Social Prefer- b d viorsofinterestwereprovidedtoexplaintheseconstructs ence Index score based on nominations (Coie et al., e ad to children who were confused or having difficulty. The 1983). This procedure is the accepted form of establish- o nl pool of potential nominees for the peer nomination pro- ing a child’s overall peer status within the classroom. w o cedures included other children in the same classrooms As social preference scores decrease, a child’s overall D (14–16children).Allclassroomswerecomparableingen- peerstatusalsodecreases.Peers’andcounselors’individ- der distribution and race=ethnicity, with one classroom ual likability ratings of each child (smiley, neutral, sad (n¼16) being significantly younger (M¼4.3 years, faces; Asher et al., 1979) were also calculated and stan- SD¼.20, F¼72.28, p<.05) than the other classrooms dardizedwithineachclassroom.Counselorratingswere (M¼5.3 years, SD¼.41). Children in the rest of the averaged and standardized across the five counselors in classrooms were comparable in age (F¼.61, p>.05). eachclassroom(Ma¼.76perclassroom;range¼.61(cid:2).88). For demographic information on the entire sample see The standardized social preference scores based on Table 1. Thirty undergraduate counselors who worked nominations and individual likability scores based on in the summer camp (five counselors per class of 14–16 ratingsbypeersandcounselorswereusedinthecurrent children) also provided their own nominations for each study. Z scores were also computed for all other items: oftheaforementionedbehavioralcategories(e.g.,impres- (a) ‘‘don’t feel bad when they do something wrong,’’ sionsofmost=leastliked,childrenwhoenjoybeingmean, (b)‘‘don’tcareiftheygetintotrouble,’’(c)‘‘enjoybeing etc.) and individual ratings. Counselors did not partici- mean,’’ (d) ‘‘are sneaky,’’ (e) ‘‘like to help and cooper- pateinthechildportionofthetaskandthuswereblinded ate,’’ (f) ‘‘share the most,’’ and (g) ‘‘ignore mean or to the children’s ratings. badthingsdonetothemandaskforhelpnicely.’’Based 206 GRAZIANOETAL. onCUmeasures,Itemsathroughdwereoperationalized 6 (extreme problem=definitely needs treatment or special as behaviors indicative of CU traits (Frick, 2004), services) on seven domains related to behavioral whereas Items e through g were operationalized as impairment (relationship with peers, relationship with children’s prosocial behaviors. These were used to siblings, relationship with parents, academic progress, generate peer and counselor reported nominations of self-esteem, influence on family functioning, andoverall CU traits and nominations of prosocial skills. impairment). The teacher version of the IRS asks teachers to rate the child similarly on six domains (relationship with peers, relationship with teacher, aca- CU traits. Parents and preschool teachers answered demic progress, self-esteem, influence on classroom five questionsderivedfrom well-established and reliable functioning,andoverallimpairment).Thecurrentstudy measures of CU including the APSD (Frick & Hare, examined the academic impairment item that measured 2001), the ICU (Frick, 2004), and the Callous Unemo- the extent to which children’s behavior problems were tional Scale of the Nova Scotia Modified IOWA Con- impairing their academic progress in the classroom as ners (Waschbusch et al., 2004). Provided that previous well as the overall severity of behavioral impairment. research has shown briefer measures of psychopathy to yieldcomparableindicesofreliabilityandvaliditywhen 6 identifying CU traits (van Baardewijk et al., 2010), we Data analysis plan. All analyses were conducted 01 chose five questions common to each of the aforemen- usingtheStatisticalPackagefortheSocialSciences,ver- 2 ril tioned measures. The items were rated on a 4-point sion 19.0. For the measuresused,there wereno missing Ap Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much) dataforthepeerorcounselorderivednominationitems 1 and included the following: seems to enjoy being mean, or parent report. However, teacher data were missing 0 8 iscoldoruncaring,lacksremorseformisbehavior,does from 34 participants. Reasons for missing teacher data 4 2: not seem to respond or care about punishment, uses or includedbutwerenotlimitedtoinabilitytocontacttea- at 1 cons other people to get what he=she wants. The CU cher,ratingsnotreturned,itemsmissing,andsoon.Lit- ] scale was computed by averaging these items (a¼.75 tle’s Missing Completely at Random Test revealed that y sit for parent and .85 for teacher). Parent and teacher CU these 34 cases were missing completely at random r ve ratings were converted to z scores. (v2¼.09, p>.05). Multiple imputation with 10 imputa- Uni tions was conducted, which is sufficient to accurately al School readiness. Parents and teachers completed estimate the data for this sample size (Rubin, 1987). n o the Kindergarten Behavior and Academic Competency Factor analyses were first conducted to determine the nati Scale (Hart & Graziano, 2013), a 24-item questionnaire extent to which children and counselors’ nominations r nte that requires parents and teachers to rate the extent to differentiated between CU and Prosocial factors. Next, a I which their child is ready for kindergarten across associations between the derived factor(s) and demo- rid variousdomainssuchasfollowingclassroomrules,com- graphic variables were examined. To examine the val- Flo pleting academic work, and engaging in positive social idity of peer nomination reports of CU, Pearson’s y [ behaviorsalonga5-pointscale(poor,fair,average,above correlations were conducted examining the derived CU d b average, excellent). For the present study, the overall factor(s)withparentandteacherratingsofexternalizing de kindergarten readiness item was used as a measure of behavior problems and severity of behavioral impair- a o kindergarten readiness, in which parents and teachers ment, counselor-derived CU factor(s), and parent and nl w rate,onascaleof1to100,howreadytheyfeeltheirchild teacherreportsofCUtraits.Correlationswerealsoused o D is in meeting the academic and behavioral demands of to examine the association between the derived CU fac- kindergartencomparedtoothersame-agedchildrenwith tor(s) and children’s social preference, likability, and higher scores indicating greater kindergarten readiness. school readiness. Last, hierarchical regression analyses Although the Kindergarten Behavior and Academic were conducted to examine the extent to which peer, Competency Scale is a measure in development, prelimi- counselor, teacher, and parent reports of CU traits nary data indicate that the overall readiness item shows uniquely related to school readiness. excellent test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient¼.82) and is sensitive to treatment effects (Graziano, Slavec, Hart, Garcia, & Pelham, 2014). RESULTS Preliminary Analyses: Factor Analyses Behavioral impairment. Parents and teachers completed the Impairment Rating Scale (IRS; Fabiano Principal component factor analyses with a promax etal.,2006).TheparentversionoftheIRSasksparents rotation, conducted separately for peers’ and counse- to rate their child on a scale from 0 (no problem= lors’ reports, were first conducted to determine the definitely does not need treatment or special services) to extent to which the nominations loaded into a single CUPEERREPORTS 207 CU factor. The seven indicator variables were the same SD¼.94) CU factor z scores compared to girls for peers’ and counselors’ reports: (a) ‘‘don’t feel bad (M¼(cid:2).38, SD¼.56 and M¼(cid:2).34, SD¼.53, respect- whentheydosomethingwrong,’’(b)‘‘don’tcareifthey ively). On the other hand, parent report of CU traits get into trouble,’’ (c) ‘‘enjoy being mean,’’ (d) ‘‘are were higher among girls (M¼.22, SD¼1.25) compared sneaky,’’ (e) ‘‘like to help and cooperate,’’ (f) ‘‘share toboys(M¼(cid:2).39,SD¼.56).Inaddition,SESwasnega- the most,’’ and (g) ‘‘ignore mean or bad things done tively related to teacher report of CU traits (r¼(cid:2).31, to them and ask for help nicely.’’ From these analyses, p<.05).No othersignificantassociations between demo- two factors emerged with an eigenvalue above 1 that graphic variables and CU ratings=nominations emerged. seemtobemeasuringbothCUandProsocialbehaviors. Subsequently, children’s sex and SES were controlled in Within the peer reports, the first factor (k¼3.28) all subsequent analyses. explained 46.80% of the total variance across items for this sample, whereas the second factor (k¼1.26) explained 17.94% of the total variance across the items Validity of Peer-Reported CU forthissample.Similarlywithinthecounselors’reports, As seen in Table 4, peer nominations of CU traits were the first factor (k¼3.54) explained 50.60% of the total significantly correlated with counselor nominations of variance across items for this sample, whereas the 6 CU traits (pr¼.45, p<.001) and marginally correlated 01 second factor (k¼1.16) explained 16.50% of the total with preschool teacher’s CU ratings (pr¼.19, p<.09). 2 varianceacrosstheitemsforthissample.Table2depicts ril the results of the factor analyses and the loadings of The counselor nominations of CU traits were also p significantly associated with preschool teacher’s CU A our indicator items on each factor. Consistent with the 1 ratings (pr¼.25, p<.05). Parents’ CU ratings were not 0 original intent of the items as well as across reporters, 8 significantlyassociatedwithanyothervariable.Interms 4 the first factor was referred to as the Callous– 2: of its associations with severity of behavior problems, at 1 Ulonademedotoionntahlisfafcatcotro,r.asThIetemsescoandthfraocutogrhwdasporseifteirvreeldy peer nominations of CU traits were not significantly ] associatedwithparentorteacherreportofexternalizing sity to as the Prosocial factor, as only Items e through g behavior problems (prs¼.09, p>.05). However, peer r positively loaded on this factor. Guided by the results e nominations of CU traits were significantly associated v ni ofthefactoranalyses,subsequentanalysesusedanover- with both parent and teacher reports of overall severity U all CU factor (average of Items a–d; as for peers and nal counselors¼.79(cid:2).81) and an overall Prosocial factor orefspbeechtiavveiloyr)a.l impairment (pr¼.21 and .33, p<.05, o ati (averageofItemse–g;asforpeersandcounselors¼.75). rn Descriptivestatisticsforthesefactorsandallotherstudy e nt variables are presented in Table 3. Associations Between CU Ratings, Prosocial I a Behaviors, and Social Preference d ri o Fl Preliminary Analyses: Demographic Variables Both peer and counselor nominations of CU traits were y [ significantlyassociatedwithsocialpreferencescoresbased b d An analysis of the demographic variables revealed a on nominations and individual likability ratings as de significant association between children’s sex and their reported by peers and counselors (prs¼(cid:2).27 to (cid:2).61, a o nominations of CU traits, F(4, 80)¼3.72, p<.05, par- ps<.05 to<.001), as well as the Prosocial Behaviors wnl tial g2¼.24. Specifically, boys had significantly higher factor as reported by peer and counselor nominations o D peer (M¼.23, SD¼.82) and counselor (M¼.23, (prs¼(cid:2).34 to (cid:2).48, ps<.05 to <.001). Preschooler TABLE2 FactorLoadingsFromPrincipalComponentsFactorAnalysis CUFactor ProsocialFactor Items PeerReport CounselorReport PeerReport CounselorReport ‘‘Don’tfeelbadwhentheydosomethingwrong’’ .85 .90 (cid:2).46 (cid:2).42 ‘‘Don’tcareiftheygetintotrouble’’ .72 .59 (cid:2).23 (cid:2).34 ‘‘Enjoybeingmean’’ .79 .89 (cid:2).35 (cid:2).48 ‘‘Aresneaky’’ .75 .85 (cid:2).28 (cid:2).35 ‘‘Liketohelpandcooperate’’ (cid:2).57 (cid:2).46 .81 .81 ‘‘Sharethemost’’ (cid:2).15 (cid:2).29 .81 .75 ‘‘Ignoremeanorbadthingsdonetothemandaskforhelpnicely’’ (cid:2).42 (cid:2).45 .82 .90 Note:CU¼callous–unemotionaltraits. 208 GRAZIANOETAL. TABLE3 DescriptiveStatisticsforOutcomeMeasures M SD Min Max ScreeningMeasures BASC-2:EBPCompositeTScore:ParentReport 66.21 13.30 41 115 BASC-2:EBPCompositeTScore:TeacherReport 67.13 13.89 43 114 ChildFullScaleIQEstimate 91.19 14.27 63 127 CU,Prosocial,SocialPreference,LikabilityMeasures CUFactorzScore:PeerReport 0 .77 (cid:2)1.21 1.88 CUFactorzScore:CounselorReport 0 .85 (cid:2).71 3.33 CURatingzScore:ParentReport –.01 .94 (cid:2).84 3.42 CURatingzScore:PreschoolTeacherReport –.06 .96 (cid:2).83 3.01 ProsocialFactorzScore:PeerReport 0 .79 (cid:2)1.26 2.16 ProsocialFactorzScore:CounselorReport 0 .82 (cid:2).72 2.59 SocialPreferencezScore:PeerReport 0 .97 (cid:2)1.98 2.35 SocialPreferencezScore:CounselorReport 0 1.00 (cid:2)2.41 2.13 LikabilityzScore:PeerReport 0 .97 (cid:2)2.12 2.16 6 LikabilityzScore:CounselorReport 0 1.00 (cid:2)2.88 1.36 1 0 SchoolReadinessMeasures 2 pril KKBBAACCSS::OOvveerraallllRRaawwSSccoorree::PTaearecnhterRRepeoprotrt 4438..9631 2233..3250 00 19000 A IRS:AcademicImpairment:ParentReport 3.80 1.81 0 6 01 IRS:AcademicImpairment:TeacherReport 3.92 2.01 0 6 8 IRS:BehavioralImpairment:ParentReport 4.49 1.24 0 6 4 2: IRS:BehavioralImpairment:TeacherReport 4.39 1.68 0 6 1 at Note: BASC-2¼Behavior Assessment System for Children, 2nd Edition; EBP¼externalizing behavior problems; CU¼callous–unemotional y] traits;KBACS¼KindergartenBehaviorandAcademicCompetencyScale;IRS¼ImpairmentRatingScale. sit r e v teacher’sCUratingswerealsomarginallyassociatedwith counselor likability ratings (pr¼.35 and .28, p<.05, ni U peer-reportedlikabilityratings(pr¼(cid:2).23,p<.08)andthe respectively)aswellascounselornominationsofProsocial al counselornominationsofProsocialBehaviors(pr¼(cid:2).26, Behaviors(pr¼.35,p<.05). n o p<.08). These associations indicated that children who ati n were reported by peers, counselors, and=or preschool a Inter toefaCchUertsraaistsewxheirbeitleinssglgikreeadtberyltehveeilrspoefebrsehaanvdioerxshiinbditiecdatleivses ABseshoacviiaotriso,nasnBdeStwceheonolCRUeaRdaintiensgss, Prosocial d ri prosocial behaviors. On the other hand, parent report of Peer nominations of CU traits were significantly asso- o Fl CU traits was positively associated with peer and ciated with kindergarten readiness as reported by both [ y b ed TABLE4 ad CorrelationsAmongVariables o nl w Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 o D 1.CUFactor:PeerReport — 2.CUFactor:CounselorReport .45(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) — 3.CURating:PreschoolTeacherReport .19y .25(cid:3) — 4.CURating:ParentReport (cid:2).04 (cid:2).16 .06 — 5.SocialPreference:PeerReport (cid:2).27(cid:3) (cid:2).31(cid:3) (cid:2).14 .10 — 6.SocialPreference:CounselorReport (cid:2).31(cid:3) (cid:2).48(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:2).17 .16 .37(cid:3)(cid:3) — 7.Likability:PeerReport (cid:2).41(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:2).30(cid:3) (cid:2).23y .35(cid:3) .72(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) .39(cid:3)(cid:3) — 8.Likability:CounselorReport (cid:2).11 (cid:2).61(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:2).16 .28(cid:3) .27(cid:3) .52(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) .22 — 9.ProsocialFactor:PeerReport (cid:2).41(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:2).34(cid:3) (cid:2).03 .19 .69(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) .36(cid:3)(cid:3) .72(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) .23y — 10.ProsocialFactor:CounselorReport (cid:2).49(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:2).43(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:2).26y .35(cid:3) .39(cid:3)(cid:3) .34(cid:3) .53(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) .34(cid:3) .57(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) — 11.KBACS:OverallRawScore(P) (cid:2).23(cid:3) (cid:2).09 (cid:2).13 (cid:2).13 (cid:2).03 .15 .04 .11 .08 .21 — 12.KBACS:OverallRawScore(T) (cid:2).24(cid:3) (cid:2).18y (cid:2).38(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:2).06 .17 .34(cid:3)(cid:3) .16 .22 .16 .15 .39(cid:3) — 13.IRS:AcademicImpairment(P) .31(cid:3)(cid:3) .06 .04 .15 (cid:2).09 (cid:2).31(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:2).04 (cid:2).10 (cid:2).06 (cid:2).03 (cid:2).36(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:2).31(cid:3) — 14.IRS:AcademicImpairment(T) .18 .14 .33(cid:3) .08 (cid:2).04 (cid:2).21 (cid:2).12 (cid:2).24y (cid:2).05 (cid:2).07 (cid:2).34(cid:3) (cid:2).61(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3) .24(cid:3) — Note:Allanalysescontrolledforchildren’ssexandsocioeconomicstatus.CU¼callous–unemotionaltraits;KBACS¼KindergartenBehavior andAcademicCompetencyScale;P¼parent-reportmeasure;T¼teacher-reportmeasure;IRS¼ImpairmentRatingScale. yp<.10.(cid:3)p<.05.(cid:3)(cid:3)p<.01.(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)p<.001. CUPEERREPORTS 209 parents (pr¼(cid:2).23, p<.05) and preschool teachers report of CU traits nor the peer or counselor (pr¼(cid:2).24, p<.05) as well as with academic impair- nominations of Prosocial Behaviors were included in ment rated by parents (pr¼.31, p<.01). Counselor theseanalysesgiventhelackofindependentcorrelations nominations of CU traits were marginally associated with any of the school readiness measures. As seen in with kindergarten readiness as reported by preschool Table 5, these analyses revealed that the peer nomina- teachers (pr¼(cid:2).18, p<.10). Preschool teachers’ CU tions of CU traits uniquely predicted kindergarten ratings were significantly associated with their own readiness as reported by parents (b¼(cid:2).34, p<.05) academicimpairmentrating(pr¼.33,p<.01)andkin- and teachers (b¼(cid:2).27, p<.08) as well as academic dergarten readiness (pr¼(cid:2).38 p<.001). Parents’ CU impairment as reported by parents (b¼(cid:2)34, p<.05), ratings were not significantly associated with any even after accounting for sex, SES, counselor nomina- schoolreadinessmeasures.Last,neitherpeernorcoun- tions of CU traits, and preschool teacher CU ratings. selor nominations of Prosocial Behaviors were related Thus, children identified by their peers as displaying to any of the school readiness measures (prs range¼ high levels of social behaviors indicative of CU traits (cid:2).03 to .21, p>.05) were rated as being less ready for kindergarten (according to both parents and teachers) and more likely to have academic impairment in the classroom. Preschool 6 Regression Analyses 1 teacher ratings of CU traits also provided unique asso- 0 2 Regression analyses were conducted to determine ciations with kindergarten readiness (b¼(cid:2).55, p<.01) ril whether peer and counselor nominations of CU traits and academic impairment (b¼.50, p<.01) as rated by p A as well as preschool teacher-rated CU ratings were the teachers themselves. Teacher ratings of CU traits 1 0 uniquely associated with school readiness while were not associated with parent measures of readiness 8 4 accountingforeachother’sinfluence.Neithertheparent or impairment. 2: 1 at ] y sit TABLE5 r e ModelforPredictingSchoolReadiness:Parent=TeacherOutcomes v ni U b TValue ModelR2 R2Change FChange al n o KBACS:OverallKindergartenReadinessRawScore(P) ati Step1.ChildSex .04 .294 .08 .08 2.06 rn SES (cid:2).38(cid:3) (cid:2)2.45 nte Step2. .20 .12 2.20y a I CUFactor:PeerReport (cid:2).34(cid:3) (cid:2)2.10 — — rid CUFactor:CounselorReport .08 .506 — — o CURating:PreschoolTeacherReport (cid:2).18 (cid:2)1.13 — — — Fl [ KBACS:OverallKindergartenReadinessRawScore(T) by Step1.ChildSex (cid:2).09 (cid:2).654 .01 .01 .293 d SES (cid:2).44 (cid:2)2.96(cid:3)(cid:3) e d Step2. — — .33 .32 6.57(cid:3)(cid:3) oa CUFactor:PeerReport (cid:2).27y (cid:2)1.70 — — — wnl CUFactor:CounselorReport .03 .165 — — — o CURating:PreschoolTeacherReport (cid:2).55(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:2)3.67 — — — D IRS:AcademicImpairment(P) Step1.ChildSex (cid:2).12 (cid:2).778 .13 .13 3.43(cid:3) SES .34(cid:3) 2.21 Step2. — — .21 .08 2.40y CUFactor:PeerReport .34(cid:3) 2.11 — — — CUFactor:CounselorReport (cid:2).07 (cid:2).446 — — — CURating:PreschoolTeacherReport .04 .239 — — — IRS:AcademicImpairment(T) Step1.ChildSex .04 .279 .00 .00 .153 SES .36(cid:3) 2.26(cid:3) Step2. .23 .23 4.14(cid:3) CUFactor:PeerReport .12 .718 — — — CUFactor:CounselorReport .04 .250 — — — CURating:PreschoolTeacherReport .50(cid:3)(cid:3) 3.00 — — — Note: KBACS¼Kindergarten Behavior and Academic Competency Scale; SES¼socioeconomic status; CU¼callous–unemotional traits; T¼teacher-reportmeasure;IRS¼ImpairmentRatingScale;P¼parent-reportmeasure. yp<.10.(cid:3)p<.05.(cid:3)(cid:3)p<.01.

ERIC ED568935: Assessing Callous-Unemotional Traits in Preschool Children with Disruptive Behavior Problems Using Peer Reports

Similar ERIC ED568935: Assessing Callous-Unemotional Traits in Preschool Children with Disruptive Behavior Problems Using Peer Reports