J Abnorm Child Psychol DOI 10.1007/s10802-014-9932-3
Cognitive Ability and Psychopathic Traits: Independent and Interactive Associations with Youth Conduct Problems Meghan E. McKenzie & Steve S. Lee
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract Although average or high IQ was central to initial conceptualizations of psychopathy, IQ is typically negatively associated with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and conduct disorder (CD). Few studies have simultaneously considered narcissism and callous-unemotional (CU) traits with respect to ODD and CD symptoms, including potential interactive associations with IQ. Participants were 221 ethnicallydiverse (45 % non-White) 6–9 year-old children with (n=114) and without (n=107) attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with separate parent and teacher ratings of narcissism, CU traits, ODD, and CD. To minimize shared method variance, we conservatively examined the association of parent-rated psychopathic traits with teacher-rated ODD and CD as well as the association of teacher-rated psychopathic traits with parent-rated ODD and CD. Controlling for age, sex, and the number of child ADHD symptoms, narcissism, but not CU traits, uniquely and positively predicted parent- and teacher-rated ODD and CD symptoms. We also observed a significant IQ × narcissism interaction where narcissism was more strongly associated with ODD and CD among children with high IQ relative to average and low IQ youth. Whereas studies of youth psychopathic traits focus almost exclusively on CU traits, narcissism independently predicted separate parent and teacher ratings of ODD and CD, particularly among children with high IQ. These preliminary data persuasively suggest that early narcissism is a critical facet of psychopathy and in conjunction with IQ, may suggest a unique profile associated with emergent conduct problems.
M. E. McKenzie : S. S. Lee (*) Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), 1285 Franz Hall, Box 951563, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563, USA e-mail: [email protected]
Keywords Psychopathic traits . Narcissism . Callous-unemotional traits . Conduct problems . IQ
Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and conduct disorder (CD) are among the most common referrals for youth mental health services (Kazdin 1987; Loeber et al. 2000). Consisting of frequent and impairing levels of aggression, irritability, defiance, and property destruction, children with ODD and CD exhibit more attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety, and depression than typically-developing youth (Boylan et al. 2007; Burke and Loeber 2010; Nock et al. 2007), thus demonstrating both heterotypic and homotypic comorbidity (Angold et al. 1999). Additionally, early-onset CD, which is typically preceded by significant ODD, is particularly predictive of poor adult outcomes including violence, arrests, and substance abuse (Moffitt 2003). By virtue of their clinical and public health significance, identifying predictors of ODD and CD is necessary to facilitate innovations in prevention and intervention efforts. Youth psychopathic traits typically consist of individual differences in narcissism, callous-unemotional (CU) traits, and conduct problems/impulsivity (Frick et al. 2000). Collectively, psychopathic traits have demonstrated robust predictive validity for negative outcomes (e.g., delinquency) beyond potent risk factors such as aggression, cognitive ability, and attention problems (Frick et al. 2003; Lynam et al. 2009; Piatigorsky and Hinshaw 2004; Salekin et al. 2004). In particular, elevated CU traits designate a subset of youth with severe, diverse, and persistent conduct problems across clinicreferred, community, and incarcerated samples (Christian et al. 1997; Dadds et al. 2005; Frick et al. 2003, 2005; Frick and Marsee 2006; Lynam 1997; Moran et al. 2009; White and Frick 2010). For example, youth with CU traits and conduct problems were less responsive to punishment-oriented methods (e.g., timeout; Hawes and Dadds 2005) and to
J Abnorm Child Psychol
parental socialization practices than children with conduct problems only (Hipwell et al. 2007). Thus, psychopathic traits delineate an empirically unique group of children with distinct risk factors and outcomes. Despite the centrality of narcissism to psychopathy in children and adults, few studies have examined the potential independent association of narcissism, relative to CU traits, with respect to predictions of key outcomes (Cooke and Michie 2001; Frick et al. 2000; Kosson et al. 2002; Salekin et al. 2004; see Allen et al. 2013 for a recent exception). Narcissism was strongly and positively associated with childhood ADHD, ODD, and CD (Barry et al. 2003; Frick et al. 2000); similarly, narcissism incremented predictions of delinquency and aggression beyond CU traits, impulsivity, and parenting behaviors (Barry et al. 2007a; Bushman and Baumeister 1998; Washburn et al. 2004). Parent and teacher ratings of psychopathic narcissism, but not CU traits and impulsivity, were positively associated with proactive and reactive aggression in a cross-sectional study of 9–12 yearolds (Barry et al. 2007b). However, several previous studies on the association of youth narcissism with childhood outcomes such as ODD and CD utilized personality-based measures of narcissism (Barry et al. 2003, 2007a; Washburn et al. 2004), which correlate differently than psychopathy-specific measures (Barry and Wallace 2010). For example, personality-based and psychopathy-based narcissism were unrelated in one study (r=0.07; Barry et al. 2003), perhaps reflecting that personality-based narcissism often includes an adaptive subscale. Overall, studies on the association of narcissism and conduct problems have largely relied on older youth (e.g., adolescents), even though psychopathic traits are reliably detected in children as young as age 4 (Dadds et al. 2005; Frick et al. 2000). Hence, it is unclear whether early individual differences in narcissism are uniquely associated with conduct problems (e.g., ODD, CD) beyond other key risk factors, including attention problems and CU traits. To improve traction on these patterns of association, studies consisting of narrow age-band youth, particularly early in development, are needed to test the independent association of psychopathy-based narcissism and CU traits with respect to multi-informant rated conduct problems. Initial conceptualizations of psychopathy emphasized the centrality of average to above average cognitive ability (i.e., IQ; Cleckley 1976). However, childhood psychopathic traits correlated positively with IQ (Christian et al. 1997; Fontaine et al. 2008; Frick et al. 1994; Loney et al. 1998; Salekin et al. 2004) whereas IQ is typically inversely correlated with conduct problems (Heinzen et al. 2011; Kandel et al. 1988; Lynam et al. 1993; White et al. 1989). One potential source of this dissociation is that psychopathy consists of separable factors, suggesting the plausibility of differential associations with IQ. For example, whereas narcissism and impulsivity were positively correlated with verbal and non-verbal IQ,
CU traits were negatively correlated with IQ (Salekin et al. 2010). However, few studies have examined the independent, and potentially interactive, association of childhood IQ, narcissism, and CU traits with respect to multi-informant measures of ODD and CD. A key exception was a small study of incarcerated adolescent boys where youth self-reported CU traits × verbal IQ predicted self-reported violent delinquency, such that high CU traits positively predicted violent delinquency among boys with high verbal IQ. Conversely, high CU traits negatively predicted violent delinquency among boys with low verbal IQ (Muñoz et al. 2008b), although narcissism and CU traits were self-reported. Previous studies similarly relied on single informants (e.g., self-report or teacher), despite the incremental utility of multiple informants (De Los Reyes et al. 2009; de Nijs et al. 2004; Loeber et al. 1991; Tripp et al. 2006). Thus, we contend that carefully ascertained samples with respect to psychopathic traits and IQ are necessary to adequately characterize the development of conduct problems. Although narcissism and CU traits are central facets of psychopathy, their independent association with respect to conduct problems (e.g., ODD, CD) remains poorly understood, including potential moderation by IQ. The goals of the current study were twofold: (1) to examine the independent association of multi-informant (i.e., parents, teachers) narcissism and CU traits with respect to ODD and CD in 6– 9 year-old children with (n = 114) and without (n = 107) ADHD; (2) to test IQ as a potential moderator of predictions of ODD and CD from narcissism and CU traits. Although we hypothesized that narcissism and CU traits would each be positively associated with ODD and CD, given the modest literature, we did not make directional hypotheses about IQ × narcissism and IQ × CU traits interactions.
Method Participants Participants were 221 ethnically diverse children (55 % Caucasian, 9 % Black, 10 % Hispanic, 3 % Asian, and 23 % Mixed or Other) with (n=114) and without (n=107) ADHD (mean age=7.86, SD=1.15). Families were recruited from local elementary schools and pediatric offices, presentations at self-help groups, and referrals from clinical service providers. Recruitment materials encouraged parents of children with and without ADHD to contact the study to determine eligibility. Inclusion criteria required English fluency and that the child lived with at least one biological parent at least half the time. Exclusion criteria included a Full Scale IQ below 70 and a previous diagnosis of an autism spectrum, seizure, or neurological disorder as well as any medical condition that prevented full participation in the study.
J Abnorm Child Psychol
The study employed a case–control design of children with and without ADHD who did not differ significantly with respect to age, sex, race-ethnicity, and income. ADHD probands met full diagnostic criteria for ADHD according to the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children, Version IV, Parent Version (DISC-IV-P; Shaffer et al. 2000), a fully structured diagnostic interview with the parent keyed to all Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association 1994) criteria. To improve the external validity of the study, common comorbidities such as ODD, anxiety, and depression were permitted in the ADHD probands. Additionally, to avoid recruiting an unrealistically high functioning non-ADHD comparison group, which would potentially exaggerate diagnostic group differences, youth who met diagnostic criteria for any disorder other than ADHD (anxiety disorders were the most common) were placed in the non-ADHD group (see Table 1). Procedure Initial eligibility, including the exclusion criteria described above, was determined using a standardized telephone screening process. Eligible families were invited to in-person laboratory assessments, and rating scales were mailed to the child’s primary teacher. After obtaining parent consent and child assent, parents were interviewed using the DISC-IV-P and completed measures of parenting, child behavior, life stress, and their own psychopathology. At the same time, children were separately assessed on standardized measures of cognitive ability, academic achievement, as well as self-reported psychopathology. Approximately 85 % of children were unmedicated during the laboratory assessment. Whenever possible, parents and teachers were asked to complete rating scales based on the child’s unmedicated behaviors. Interviews were conducted by intensively-trained clinical psychology doctoral students and BA-level staff; interviewers were initially blind to the child’s diagnostic status, but blindness could not always be preserved due to the extensive information gathered on the DISC-IV-P. Families were paid $50 and received a diagnostic report of the child’s academic, socio-emotional, and behavioral development. All study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board.
Measures Disruptive Behavior Disorder Rating Scale, Parent and Teacher Version (P-DBD & T-DBD, respectively; Pelham et al. 1992). The P-DBD and T-DBD are identical rating scales of ADHD, ODD, and CD symptoms. All items were rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much), and symptom totals were separately estimated for ODD and CD. The DBD is an evidence-based assessment tool with superior psychometrics. In the current sample, the coefficient alpha was 0.89, and 0.67 for parent ratings of ODD and CD symptoms, respectively, and 0.94 and 0.92 for teacher ratings, respectively. The DBD rating scale was used to assess the number of parent- and teacher-rated ODD and CD symptoms, which were analyzed as separate outcomes. Due to missing data, the total sample size was 127 for predictions of teacher-rated ODD and CD. Antisocial Process Screening Device, Parent and Teacher Version (P-APSD & T-APSD, respectively; Frick and Hare 2001). The APSD consists of 20 items measuring three factors of psychopathy: narcissism, CU traits, and impulsivity (Frick et al. 2000). Parents and teachers separately rated each item as 0 = not at all true, 1 = sometimes true, or 2 = definitely true. CU traits were estimated from six items including: “Is concerned about how well he/she does at school/work (R),” “Does not show feelings or emotions,” and “Feels bad or guilty when he/she does something wrong (R).” The narcissism scale consists of seven items such as “Uses or ‘cons’ others,” “Teases or makes fun of others,” and “Acts charming.” Coefficient alphas for the narcissism subscale were 0.83 and 0.85 in a community and clinical sample, respectively, and 0.65 to 0.76 for CU traits, respectively (Frick et al. 2000). In the current sample, alphas for parent and teacher ratings of narcissism were 0.80 and 0.81, respectively and 0.60 and 0.70 for CU traits. Due to missing teacher data, the total sample size was 153 for teacher-rated narcissism and CU traits. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fourth Edition (WISC-IV, Wechsler et al. 2003). We administered the Vocabulary, Symbol Search, and Arithmetic subtests and summed their scaled scores given its high convergence with the Full Scale IQ (r=0.91) estimated from the full battery in the normative sample (Sattler and Dumont 2004).
Table 1 Means and percentages for demographic and clinical characteristics of participants Variable
ADHD (n=114)
Non-ADHD (n=107)
F/χ2
p
Age (SD) % Caucasian Child IQ (SD) % anxiety diagnosis (not specific phobia) % ODD diagnosis % CD diagnosis
7.79 (1.16) 54.21 104.63 (14.25) 18.80 31.58 2.63
8.00 (1.16) 55.77 108.69 (15.46) 7.48 6.54 0.00
1.86 χ2 =0.14 4.05 χ2 =6.18 χ2 =22.08 χ2 =2.86
0.174 0.707 0.046 0.013
Cognitive Ability and Psychopathic Traits: Independent and Interactive Associations with Youth Conduct Problems Meghan E. McKenzie & Steve S. Lee
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract Although average or high IQ was central to initial conceptualizations of psychopathy, IQ is typically negatively associated with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and conduct disorder (CD). Few studies have simultaneously considered narcissism and callous-unemotional (CU) traits with respect to ODD and CD symptoms, including potential interactive associations with IQ. Participants were 221 ethnicallydiverse (45 % non-White) 6–9 year-old children with (n=114) and without (n=107) attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with separate parent and teacher ratings of narcissism, CU traits, ODD, and CD. To minimize shared method variance, we conservatively examined the association of parent-rated psychopathic traits with teacher-rated ODD and CD as well as the association of teacher-rated psychopathic traits with parent-rated ODD and CD. Controlling for age, sex, and the number of child ADHD symptoms, narcissism, but not CU traits, uniquely and positively predicted parent- and teacher-rated ODD and CD symptoms. We also observed a significant IQ × narcissism interaction where narcissism was more strongly associated with ODD and CD among children with high IQ relative to average and low IQ youth. Whereas studies of youth psychopathic traits focus almost exclusively on CU traits, narcissism independently predicted separate parent and teacher ratings of ODD and CD, particularly among children with high IQ. These preliminary data persuasively suggest that early narcissism is a critical facet of psychopathy and in conjunction with IQ, may suggest a unique profile associated with emergent conduct problems.
M. E. McKenzie : S. S. Lee (*) Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), 1285 Franz Hall, Box 951563, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563, USA e-mail: [email protected]
Keywords Psychopathic traits . Narcissism . Callous-unemotional traits . Conduct problems . IQ
Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and conduct disorder (CD) are among the most common referrals for youth mental health services (Kazdin 1987; Loeber et al. 2000). Consisting of frequent and impairing levels of aggression, irritability, defiance, and property destruction, children with ODD and CD exhibit more attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety, and depression than typically-developing youth (Boylan et al. 2007; Burke and Loeber 2010; Nock et al. 2007), thus demonstrating both heterotypic and homotypic comorbidity (Angold et al. 1999). Additionally, early-onset CD, which is typically preceded by significant ODD, is particularly predictive of poor adult outcomes including violence, arrests, and substance abuse (Moffitt 2003). By virtue of their clinical and public health significance, identifying predictors of ODD and CD is necessary to facilitate innovations in prevention and intervention efforts. Youth psychopathic traits typically consist of individual differences in narcissism, callous-unemotional (CU) traits, and conduct problems/impulsivity (Frick et al. 2000). Collectively, psychopathic traits have demonstrated robust predictive validity for negative outcomes (e.g., delinquency) beyond potent risk factors such as aggression, cognitive ability, and attention problems (Frick et al. 2003; Lynam et al. 2009; Piatigorsky and Hinshaw 2004; Salekin et al. 2004). In particular, elevated CU traits designate a subset of youth with severe, diverse, and persistent conduct problems across clinicreferred, community, and incarcerated samples (Christian et al. 1997; Dadds et al. 2005; Frick et al. 2003, 2005; Frick and Marsee 2006; Lynam 1997; Moran et al. 2009; White and Frick 2010). For example, youth with CU traits and conduct problems were less responsive to punishment-oriented methods (e.g., timeout; Hawes and Dadds 2005) and to
J Abnorm Child Psychol
parental socialization practices than children with conduct problems only (Hipwell et al. 2007). Thus, psychopathic traits delineate an empirically unique group of children with distinct risk factors and outcomes. Despite the centrality of narcissism to psychopathy in children and adults, few studies have examined the potential independent association of narcissism, relative to CU traits, with respect to predictions of key outcomes (Cooke and Michie 2001; Frick et al. 2000; Kosson et al. 2002; Salekin et al. 2004; see Allen et al. 2013 for a recent exception). Narcissism was strongly and positively associated with childhood ADHD, ODD, and CD (Barry et al. 2003; Frick et al. 2000); similarly, narcissism incremented predictions of delinquency and aggression beyond CU traits, impulsivity, and parenting behaviors (Barry et al. 2007a; Bushman and Baumeister 1998; Washburn et al. 2004). Parent and teacher ratings of psychopathic narcissism, but not CU traits and impulsivity, were positively associated with proactive and reactive aggression in a cross-sectional study of 9–12 yearolds (Barry et al. 2007b). However, several previous studies on the association of youth narcissism with childhood outcomes such as ODD and CD utilized personality-based measures of narcissism (Barry et al. 2003, 2007a; Washburn et al. 2004), which correlate differently than psychopathy-specific measures (Barry and Wallace 2010). For example, personality-based and psychopathy-based narcissism were unrelated in one study (r=0.07; Barry et al. 2003), perhaps reflecting that personality-based narcissism often includes an adaptive subscale. Overall, studies on the association of narcissism and conduct problems have largely relied on older youth (e.g., adolescents), even though psychopathic traits are reliably detected in children as young as age 4 (Dadds et al. 2005; Frick et al. 2000). Hence, it is unclear whether early individual differences in narcissism are uniquely associated with conduct problems (e.g., ODD, CD) beyond other key risk factors, including attention problems and CU traits. To improve traction on these patterns of association, studies consisting of narrow age-band youth, particularly early in development, are needed to test the independent association of psychopathy-based narcissism and CU traits with respect to multi-informant rated conduct problems. Initial conceptualizations of psychopathy emphasized the centrality of average to above average cognitive ability (i.e., IQ; Cleckley 1976). However, childhood psychopathic traits correlated positively with IQ (Christian et al. 1997; Fontaine et al. 2008; Frick et al. 1994; Loney et al. 1998; Salekin et al. 2004) whereas IQ is typically inversely correlated with conduct problems (Heinzen et al. 2011; Kandel et al. 1988; Lynam et al. 1993; White et al. 1989). One potential source of this dissociation is that psychopathy consists of separable factors, suggesting the plausibility of differential associations with IQ. For example, whereas narcissism and impulsivity were positively correlated with verbal and non-verbal IQ,
CU traits were negatively correlated with IQ (Salekin et al. 2010). However, few studies have examined the independent, and potentially interactive, association of childhood IQ, narcissism, and CU traits with respect to multi-informant measures of ODD and CD. A key exception was a small study of incarcerated adolescent boys where youth self-reported CU traits × verbal IQ predicted self-reported violent delinquency, such that high CU traits positively predicted violent delinquency among boys with high verbal IQ. Conversely, high CU traits negatively predicted violent delinquency among boys with low verbal IQ (Muñoz et al. 2008b), although narcissism and CU traits were self-reported. Previous studies similarly relied on single informants (e.g., self-report or teacher), despite the incremental utility of multiple informants (De Los Reyes et al. 2009; de Nijs et al. 2004; Loeber et al. 1991; Tripp et al. 2006). Thus, we contend that carefully ascertained samples with respect to psychopathic traits and IQ are necessary to adequately characterize the development of conduct problems. Although narcissism and CU traits are central facets of psychopathy, their independent association with respect to conduct problems (e.g., ODD, CD) remains poorly understood, including potential moderation by IQ. The goals of the current study were twofold: (1) to examine the independent association of multi-informant (i.e., parents, teachers) narcissism and CU traits with respect to ODD and CD in 6– 9 year-old children with (n = 114) and without (n = 107) ADHD; (2) to test IQ as a potential moderator of predictions of ODD and CD from narcissism and CU traits. Although we hypothesized that narcissism and CU traits would each be positively associated with ODD and CD, given the modest literature, we did not make directional hypotheses about IQ × narcissism and IQ × CU traits interactions.
Method Participants Participants were 221 ethnically diverse children (55 % Caucasian, 9 % Black, 10 % Hispanic, 3 % Asian, and 23 % Mixed or Other) with (n=114) and without (n=107) ADHD (mean age=7.86, SD=1.15). Families were recruited from local elementary schools and pediatric offices, presentations at self-help groups, and referrals from clinical service providers. Recruitment materials encouraged parents of children with and without ADHD to contact the study to determine eligibility. Inclusion criteria required English fluency and that the child lived with at least one biological parent at least half the time. Exclusion criteria included a Full Scale IQ below 70 and a previous diagnosis of an autism spectrum, seizure, or neurological disorder as well as any medical condition that prevented full participation in the study.
J Abnorm Child Psychol
The study employed a case–control design of children with and without ADHD who did not differ significantly with respect to age, sex, race-ethnicity, and income. ADHD probands met full diagnostic criteria for ADHD according to the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children, Version IV, Parent Version (DISC-IV-P; Shaffer et al. 2000), a fully structured diagnostic interview with the parent keyed to all Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association 1994) criteria. To improve the external validity of the study, common comorbidities such as ODD, anxiety, and depression were permitted in the ADHD probands. Additionally, to avoid recruiting an unrealistically high functioning non-ADHD comparison group, which would potentially exaggerate diagnostic group differences, youth who met diagnostic criteria for any disorder other than ADHD (anxiety disorders were the most common) were placed in the non-ADHD group (see Table 1). Procedure Initial eligibility, including the exclusion criteria described above, was determined using a standardized telephone screening process. Eligible families were invited to in-person laboratory assessments, and rating scales were mailed to the child’s primary teacher. After obtaining parent consent and child assent, parents were interviewed using the DISC-IV-P and completed measures of parenting, child behavior, life stress, and their own psychopathology. At the same time, children were separately assessed on standardized measures of cognitive ability, academic achievement, as well as self-reported psychopathology. Approximately 85 % of children were unmedicated during the laboratory assessment. Whenever possible, parents and teachers were asked to complete rating scales based on the child’s unmedicated behaviors. Interviews were conducted by intensively-trained clinical psychology doctoral students and BA-level staff; interviewers were initially blind to the child’s diagnostic status, but blindness could not always be preserved due to the extensive information gathered on the DISC-IV-P. Families were paid $50 and received a diagnostic report of the child’s academic, socio-emotional, and behavioral development. All study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board.
Measures Disruptive Behavior Disorder Rating Scale, Parent and Teacher Version (P-DBD & T-DBD, respectively; Pelham et al. 1992). The P-DBD and T-DBD are identical rating scales of ADHD, ODD, and CD symptoms. All items were rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much), and symptom totals were separately estimated for ODD and CD. The DBD is an evidence-based assessment tool with superior psychometrics. In the current sample, the coefficient alpha was 0.89, and 0.67 for parent ratings of ODD and CD symptoms, respectively, and 0.94 and 0.92 for teacher ratings, respectively. The DBD rating scale was used to assess the number of parent- and teacher-rated ODD and CD symptoms, which were analyzed as separate outcomes. Due to missing data, the total sample size was 127 for predictions of teacher-rated ODD and CD. Antisocial Process Screening Device, Parent and Teacher Version (P-APSD & T-APSD, respectively; Frick and Hare 2001). The APSD consists of 20 items measuring three factors of psychopathy: narcissism, CU traits, and impulsivity (Frick et al. 2000). Parents and teachers separately rated each item as 0 = not at all true, 1 = sometimes true, or 2 = definitely true. CU traits were estimated from six items including: “Is concerned about how well he/she does at school/work (R),” “Does not show feelings or emotions,” and “Feels bad or guilty when he/she does something wrong (R).” The narcissism scale consists of seven items such as “Uses or ‘cons’ others,” “Teases or makes fun of others,” and “Acts charming.” Coefficient alphas for the narcissism subscale were 0.83 and 0.85 in a community and clinical sample, respectively, and 0.65 to 0.76 for CU traits, respectively (Frick et al. 2000). In the current sample, alphas for parent and teacher ratings of narcissism were 0.80 and 0.81, respectively and 0.60 and 0.70 for CU traits. Due to missing teacher data, the total sample size was 153 for teacher-rated narcissism and CU traits. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fourth Edition (WISC-IV, Wechsler et al. 2003). We administered the Vocabulary, Symbol Search, and Arithmetic subtests and summed their scaled scores given its high convergence with the Full Scale IQ (r=0.91) estimated from the full battery in the normative sample (Sattler and Dumont 2004).
Table 1 Means and percentages for demographic and clinical characteristics of participants Variable
ADHD (n=114)
Non-ADHD (n=107)
F/χ2
p
Age (SD) % Caucasian Child IQ (SD) % anxiety diagnosis (not specific phobia) % ODD diagnosis % CD diagnosis
7.79 (1.16) 54.21 104.63 (14.25) 18.80 31.58 2.63
8.00 (1.16) 55.77 108.69 (15.46) 7.48 6.54 0.00
1.86 χ2 =0.14 4.05 χ2 =6.18 χ2 =22.08 χ2 =2.86
0.174 0.707 0.046 0.013
