11/28/2011
Callous-Unemotional Traits and
Developmental Pathways to Violent
Behavior in Children and Adolescents
DSM-IV Criteria for Conduct
Disorder
American Psychiatric Association, 1994
 Aggression to people and animals
Paul J. Frick, Ph.D.
University Distinguished Professor
Chair, Department of Psychology
University of New Orleans
 Destruction of property
 Deceitfulness or theft
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: http://www.psyc.uno.edu/Frick%20Lab/Home.html
Childhood-Onset Conduct Disorder
 Serious violations of rules
Runs away from home overnight
Truancy
Childhood-Onset Conduct Disorder
Adult (age 26) Outcome
Cruel to Others, Stealing, Running
Away from Home, Truancy,
Breaking and Entering, Assault
Lies, Physical Fights Bullies,
Cruel to Animals, Breaks Rules
Stubborn, Defies Adults, NonCompliant, Temper Tantrums,
Argumentative, Annoys Others
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
60
50
A
G
E
40
30
20
10
0
Any Adult Convictions
No CP (n=233)
Violent Convictions
Childhood‐onset (n=42)
Adolescent‐onset (n=119)
Source: Moffitt, Caspi, Harrington, & Milne, 2002
1
11/28/2011
Childhood-Onset Conduct Disorder
Cleckley’s Psychopath
Cleckley, H. (1976). The Mask of Sanity, 5th Edition
Superficial charm
Absence of nervousness
Untruthfulness and insincerity
Lack of remorse or shame
Unreliability
Inadequately motivated antisocial behavior
Pathological egocentricity
Incapacity for love
Poverty in major affective reactions
Dimensions of Psychopathy in Children
Callous-Unemotional
Narcissism
Impulsivity
Is unconcerned about the
feelings of others
Thinks he/she more
important than others
Acts without thinking
Does not feel bad or
guilty
Brags excessively about
accomplishments
Is unconcerned about
school work
Uses or cons others
Does not plan ahead
I. Construct Development
Does not keep promises
Can be charming in
ways that seem
insincere
Engages in risky
activities
Blames others for
mistakes
Gets bored easily
Does not show emotions
Does not keep same
friends
Becomes angry when
corrected
Source: Frick, Bodin, & Barry, 2000
2
11/28/2011
Callous-Unemotional Traits
Callous-Unemotional Traits
Is unconcerned about the feelings of others.
Does not feel bad or guilty.
Is unconcerned about school work.
Does not show emotions.
Does not keep promises.
Does not keep the same friends.
Is unconcerned about the feelings of others.
Does not feel bad or guilty.
Is unconcerned about school work.
Does not show emotions.
Does not keep promises.
Does not keep the same friends.
Source: Frick, Bodin, and Barry, 2000
Factor Analysis of Inventory of CallousUnemotional Traits
Essau et al. 2006; Fanti et al., 2009; Kimonis et al., 2008; Roose et al, 2010
Source: Frick, Bodin, and Barry, 2000
Factor Analysis of Inventory of CallousUnemotional Traits
Essau et al., 2006; Fanti et al., 2009; Kimonis et al., 2008; Roose et al., 2010
Callousness
I do not care who I hurt to get what
I want
I am concerned about the feelings of
others (I)
I do not care if I get into trouble
I do not feel remorseful when I do
something wrong
I do not care about doing things well
The feelings of others are
unimportant to me
Uncaring
I do not care about being on time
I always try my best (I)
I do not like to put the time into
doing things well
What I think is “right” and “wrong”
is different from what other people
think
I do not let my feelings control me
I seem very cold and uncaring to
others
I work hard on everything
I do (I)
I apologize (“say I’m sorry”)
to persons I hurt (I)
I care about how well I do
school work (I)
I try not to hurt others’
feelings (I)
I do things to make others
feel good (I)
I easily admit to being
wrong (I)
I feel bad or guilty when
I do something wrong (I)
3
11/28/2011
Factor Analysis of Inventory of CallousUnemotional Traits
Essau et al., 2006; Fanti et al., 2009; Kimonis et al., 2008; Roose et al., 2010
Unemotional
I express my feelings openly (I)
Stability of Callous-Unemotional Traits in
Children and Adolescents
 Age 11 to 15 (parent report): ICC =.71
Frick et al. (2003)
 Age 8 to 17 (parent report): r=.50
Obradovic et al. (2007)
I am very expressive and emotional (I)
 Age 17-24 (self report): r=.60
Blonigen et al. (2006)
I do not show my emotions
 Age 12-24 (self report to PCL-R): r=31
I hide my feelings from others
It is easy for others to tell how I am feelings (I)
Lynam et al, 2007
 21% in upper 10% on CU were elevated as adults
 3.22 times the risk of those not in upper 10%
Adolescent Sex Offenders
Lawing, Frick, & Cruise, 2010
150 adolescent boys detained for a sexual offense
II. Association with Severity
of Antisocial Behavior
Age range 12 - 20 (Mean = 15.89, SD=1.53)
49% African-American
Sexual battery (32%) and aggravated rape (15%)
were most common charges
86% had history of at least one violent offense
4
11/28/2011
J-SOAP-II Items
J-SOAP-II Items
Prentky & Righthand, 2003
Prentky & Righthand, 2003
Number of sexual abuse
victims
Score of 0 = Only 1 known
victim
Duration of sex offense
history
Score of 0= Only 1 known
sexual offense and no other
history of sexual aggression
Score of 1 = 2 known
victims
Score of 2 = 3 or more
known victims
Score of 1 = There are
multiple sex offenses
within a brief time
period (6 months or
less).
Score of 2 = There are
multiple sex offenses that
extend over a period greater
than 6 months and involve 1
or more victims.
Lawing, Frick, & Cruise, 2010
(n=69)
High CU
F (df)
Sexualized aggression
Score of 0 = No gratuitous or
expressive aggression. No evidence
that the individual intentionally
physically hurt the victim or
demeaned or humiliated the victim.
Partial
Score of 2 = Moderate or
detailed planning. There must be
a clear modus operandi. The
offenses may appear “scripted,”
with a particular victim and
crime location targeted.
Score of 1 = Mild amount
of expressive aggression.
As evidenced by swearing
or cursing at the victim,
threatening the victim,
squeezing, slapping, or
pushing the victim.
Score of 2 = Moderate to high
amount of expressive
aggression. As evidenced by
punching, kicking, cutting,
burning, or stabbing the victim;
causing physical injuries that
require medical attention.
Frick, Cornell, Barry, Bodin, & Dane, 2003
Eta2
(n=81)
Score of 1 = Mild degree
of planning. Some clear
evidence that the
individual thought about
or fantasized about the
sexual offense before the
encounter.
CU Traits and the Prediction of Antisocial
Behavior
Adolescent Sex Offenders
Low CU
Degree of planning in sexual
offenses
Score of 0 = No planning. All
known sexual offenses appear to
have been impulsive, opportunistic,
sudden, and without any apparent
forethought prior to the encounter.
CU Traits
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Low
Number of Victims
.40(.65)
.69(.80)
5.65(1, 147)* .037
Offense History
.76(.81)
.96(.87)
1.98(1, 147)
Degree of Planning
.44(.58)
.67(.69)
4.67(1, 147)* .031
Sexualized Aggression
.22(.53)
.42(.60)
4.74(1, 147)* .031
Duration of Sexual
.013
______________________________________________________________
Note. *p <.05; Effects are the between group effects from a one-way ANOVA,
covarying history of antisocial behavior. Means reported are least squares means
adjusted for the covariate.
Low
Conduct
Problems
High
N=224
SEI =53.49 (12.38)
Boys = 32%
Caucasian = 92%
N=66
SEI = 54.53(19.95)
Boys = 52%
Caucasian = 91%
High
Low
N=77
SEI=22.46 (22.46)
Boys = 60%
Caucasian = 64%
N=128
SEI = 37.17 (19.10)
Boys = 64%
Caucasian = 68%
5
11/28/2011
CU Traits and Type of Aggression in a NonReferred Sample
CU Traits, Conduct Problems, and Type of
Aggression in a Non-Referred Sample
Frick, Cornell, Barry, Bodin, & Dane, 2003
Frick, Cornell, Barry, Bodin, & Dane, 2003
1
Mean Age = 12.35 (1.72)
0.8
Gender = 52% Girls / 48% Boys
0.4
0.6
0.2
0
Ethnicity =21% African- American / 79%
Caucasian
‐0.2
‐0.4
‐0.6
‐0.8
Mean K-BIT Composite = 104.74 (12.98)
Control
CU‐only
CP‐only
CU+CP
Reactive Aggression
CP: F(1,86)= 37.79; p < .001
Conduct Problem Trajectories
Control
CU‐only
CP‐only
CU+CP
Proactive Aggression
CP: F(1,86)= 22.20; p < .001
CU X CP: F (1,86) = 5.53, p < .05
Self-reported Delinquency
Trajectories
3.5
7
6
3
5
2.5
Control
CU-Only
CP-Only
CU+CP
Conduct 4
Problems
3
2
1
Number
of
2
Self-Reported
Total
1.5
Delinquent
1
Offenses
Control
CU-Only
CP-Only
CU+CP
0.5
0
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
Time 4
Frick, Stickle, Dandreaux, Farrell, & Kimonis, 2005
0
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
Time 4
Frick, Stickle, Dandreaux, Farell, & Kimonis, 2005
6
11/28/2011
Property Delinquency Trajectories
0.7
0.6
0.5
Number
of
0.4
Self-Reported
Property
0.3
Offenses
0.2
Control
CU-Only
CP-Only
CU+CP
0.1
0
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
Violent Delinquency Trajectories
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Number
0.6
of
0.5
Self-Reported 0.4
Violent
0.3
Offenses
0.2
0.1
0
Control
CU-Only
CP-Only
CU+CP
Time 1
Time 4
Time 2
Time 3
Time 4
Frick, Stickle, Dandreaux, Farrell, & Kimonis, 2005
Frick, Stickle, Dandreaux, Farrell, & Kimonis, 2005
Cumulative Hazard Curves for
Parent-Reported Police Contacts
Other Evidence for CU Traits being Associated
with Severity of Antisocial Behavior in Youth
Frick & Dickens (2006) Review
35
30
10 published concurrent studies
25
Cumulative
Rate
of
Police
Contacts
Control
CU-Only
CP-Only
CU+CP
20
15
10
5
0
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
Time 4
Frick, Stickle, Dandreaux, Farrell, & Kimonis, 2005
•As young as age 3 and 4 (Kimonis et al., 2006)
13 published predictive studies
•Gretton et al. (2004) - CU traits in adjudicated adolescents (ages
12-18) predicted more violent offenses and shorter time to violent
reoffending over 10 year follow-up
5 published studies as negative treatment indicator
•Hawes & Dadds (2005) - predicted poor response to parenting
intervention in 4 to 8 year old clinic-referred children
7
11/28/2011
CU Traits and the Diagnosis of Conduct Disorder
in a Nationally Representative Sample
Rowe, Maughan, Moran, Ford, Briskman, & Goodman, 2010
N=5,326 (British Child and Adolescent Mental
Health Survey)
Ages 5-16
 2% of sample had CD
46% of those with CD were high on CU traits
CU Traits and the Diagnosis of Conduct Disorder
in a Nationally Representative Sample
Rowe, Maughan, Moran, Ford, Briskman, & Goodman, 2010
3 year outcome
No CD / CU CU only
(n=4972)
(n=124)
CD only
(n=38)
CD + CU
(n=36)
Any Disorder
7.7%
33.7%
40.9%
74.8%
Conduct Disorder
1.2%
12.3%
13.9%
68.6%
Police Contact
6.2%
12.5%
36.4%
57.0%
Note: The percentages in bold resulted in significantly different odds ratio when comparing CD‐Only to CD+CU, adjusting for age and gender. Predictive Utility CONTROLLING for Other Indices
of Severity
McMahon et al., 2010
Predictor
(Grade 7)
Adult Arrests
(n=754)
ASPD Symptom
Count (n=511)
CU Traits
.87 **
.46 *
CD Sx/Dx
.43 **
.19
ODD Sx/Dx
ADHD Sx / Dx
Childhood onset
APSD Diagnosis
(n=503)
.30 *
-.02
-.17
.19
.20
.00
-.04
.01
.58 *
.33 *
-.11
III. Distinct Developmental
Pathways within ChildhoodOnset Conduct Disorder
Standardized regression coefficients showing independent contribution. * p <
.05; ** p < .01; Adult = 2 years post-high school. For continuous outcomes
(adult arrests and ASPD criterion count), the criterion counts of CD, ODD,
and ADHD were included as covariates. For the binary outcome (ASPD
diagnosis), CD, ODD, and ADHD diagnoses were included as covariates.
8
11/28/2011
Estimates of Genetic Influences on
Conduct Problems with and without CU
Traits in 7374 7-year old Twins
Examples of Emotional Pictures
Viding, Blair, Moffitt, & Plomin, 2005
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Non-Shared
Environment
Shared Environment
Genetics
Conduct Problems Only Conduct Problems + CU
N=210
N=234
9
11/28/2011
Emotional Processing and CU Traits in
a Sample of Community Children
Kimonis, Frick, Fazekas, & Loney, 2006
50 children (ages 6 -13) of college students
Mean age = 9.30 (sd=2.00)
Mean SEI = 54.73 (sd = 23.24)
70% Caucasian
24% had received mental health services
Emotional Processing and CU Traits in a
Sample of Community Children (n=50)
Emotional Processing and CU Traits in a
Sample of Detained Boys (n=88)
Kimonis, Frick, Fazekas, & Loney, 2006
Kimonis, Frick, Munoz, & Aucoin, 2008
25
20
15
Emotional
10
Facilitation
5
To
0
Distress
Pictures
-5
Std Beta = .27, p = n.s.
-10
-15
-20
250
Std Beta = -.46, p < .05
Emotional 200
Facilitation
150
To
Distress
100
Pictures
Std Beta = .13, p = n.s.
50
0
Low CU
Low Aggression
Mod CU
High Aggression
Hi CU
Std Beta = -.22, p = n.s.
Low CU
Low Aggression
Mod CU
Hi CU
High Aggression
10
11/28/2011
Emotional Processing and CU Traits in a
Sample of Detained Boys
Kimonis, Frick, Munoz, & Aucoin, 2008
Munoz et al., 2008
 Task goal - press space bar faster than opponent
Win - 50 points + take 0-100 points from opponent + record taunt
Lose - Low Provocation (n=8)
– Lost 0 to 20 points
– Mild taunt, “Nice try! I’ll cut you a break. I’ll only take 10 points
this time”.
Lose - High Provocation (n=8)
– Lose 80 to 100 points
– Severe taunt, “You’re so slow my Grandma could beat you. That’s
going to cost you 100 points”.
88 adolescent detained boys (13 - 18)
Mean age = 15.57 (sd=1.28)
Mean PPVT-III = 85.60 (sd = 13.50)
•PPVT < 65 excluded
68% African-American
 Skin Conductance Response after high and low provocation messages (mn
amplitude 1 to 5 secs post stimulus).
CU Traits and Response to
Provocation
Published Research Support
Frick & White, 2008
Munoz et al., 2008
Mn SCR/ Low Prov
Total ICU
Competitive Reaction Time Task
‐.25 *
Mn SCR/ HI Prov
‐.25 *
31 studies showing different correlates than antisocial
behavior or showing it designate a distinct group of
antisocial/delinquent youth
•Reduced responsiveness to emotional stimuli (n=10)
•Abnormal responses to punishment cues (n=10)
•Negative correlations with anxiety/neuroticism controlling
for level of conduct problems (n=7)
11
11/28/2011
Developmental Model Involving Callous-Unemotional
Traits
Temperament and Parenting Interactions in Predicting
Conscience Development in Pre-Schoolers
Cornell & Frick, 2007
Inhibited (N =43)
ParentRated
Guilt
95
93
91
89
87
85
83
81
79
77
75
Uninhibited (N=44)
Std Beta = .13, p = n.s.
Std Beta = -.32, p < .05
Low
Medium
High
Inconsistent Discipline
Temperament and Parenting Interactions in Predicting
Conscience Development in Pre-Schoolers
Developmental Model Involving Callous-Unemotional
Traits
Cornell & Frick, 2007
Inhibited (N =43)
ParentRated
Guilt
95
93
91
89
87
85
83
81
79
77
75
Uninhibited (N=44)
Std Beta = -.08, p = n.s.
Std Beta = .38, p < .01
Low
Medium
High
Authoritarian Parenting
12
11/28/2011
Psychopathy Variants
Psychopathy Variants
Kimonis, Frick, Cauffman, Goldweber, & Skeem, in press
Kimonis, Frick, Cauffman, Goldweber, & Skeem, in press
Primary
Variant
(n=122)
AnxiousDepressed
Anger
Maltreatment
Secondary
Variant
(n=43)
Non-CU
Comparison
(n=208)
Effect
Size (d)
5.43
(4.08)
8.57
(3.66)
5.89
(4.64)
.69
92.15
(14.610
101.41
(16.73)
85.10
(16.15)
.54
1.56
(1.47)
2.24
(1.46)
1.37
(1.60)
.41
Note: Sample was 373 male juvenile offenders housed in a secure confinement facility between
the ages of 14 and 17; 53% Hispanic, 29% African-American, 6% Caucasian; 69% were sentenced
for violent offense; means with different colors differ significantly using Tukey’s HSD.
Characteristics of Antisocial Youth Children
without CU traits
CU Traits, Conduct Disorder, Intelligence
Christian, Frick, Hill, Tyler, & Frazer, 1997
Impulsive, with high rates of ADHD
•Adjudicated sample (Caputo et al., 1999)
•Clinic-referred sample (Christian et al., 1997)
•Community sample (Frick, Bodin, & Barry, 2000)
105
A
A
100
Distressed by effects of behavior on others
•Adjudicated sample (Pardini et al., 2003)
•Clinic-referred sample (Frick et al., 1999)
•Community sample (Frick, Cornell, Bodin et al., 2003)
Full
Scale
IQ
B
95
90
85
80
High levels of emotional reactivity
•Self-report ratings (Pardini et al., 2003)
•Emotional words (Loney et al., 2003)
•Emotional pictures (Kimonis et al., 2004)
75
70
Clinic Control
Impulsive Conduct
CU Conduct
13
11/28/2011
CU Traits, Conduct Problems, and
Dysfunctional Parenting
Wootton, Frick, Shelton, & Silverthorn, 1997
CU Traits, Conduct Problems, and Dysfunctional
Parenting
Pasalich, Dadds, Hawes, & Brennan, in press
1
Std Beta = -.07, p = n.s.
9
0.8
8
Predicted
Number of
ODD/CD
Symptoms
Std Beta = -.14, p = n.s.
S
7
6
5
Low CU (n=107)
4
0.6
Conduct
Problems 0.4
(Z-score)
0.2
Std Beta = .30, p < .05
Low CU
Hi CU
High CU (n=48)
Std Beta = .47, p < .01
3
0
2
-0.2
1
-0.4
0
‐5
‐4
‐3
‐2
‐1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Mother’s Coercive Parenting
6
Note: Participants were 96 clinic-referred boys with conduct disorder (4-12 years)
Scores on the Dysfunctional Parenting Composite
CU Traits, Conduct Problems, and Dysfunctional
Parenting
Developmental Model Involving Poor Impulse Control
Pasalich, Dadds, Hawes, & Brennan, in press
2
1.5
Std Beta = -.56, p < .05.
1
Conduct
Problems
(Z-score) 0.5
Std Beta = -.13, p = n.s.
Low CU
Hi CU
0
-0.5
-1
Mother’s Warmth
Note: Participants were 96 clinic-referred boys with conduct disorder (4-12 years)
14
11/28/2011
Summary of Conduct Disorder Pathways
Summary of Conduct Disorder Pathways
Frick & Dickens, 2006
Frick & Dickens, 2006
Conduct Disorder
Childhood‐Onset
Subtype
Conduct Disorder
Adolescent‐Onset
Subtype
Childhood‐Onset
Subtype
Primarily Impulsive
Type
Proposed Specifier for Conduct Disorder for
the DSM-V: “With Significant CallousUnemotional Traits” (WWW.DSM5.ORG)
1. Meets full criteria for Conduct Disorder.
2. Shows 2 or more of the following characteristics
persistently over at least 12 months and in more than one
relationship or setting. The clinician should consider
multiple sources of information to determine the presence
of these traits, such as whether the person self-reports them
as being characteristic of him or herself and if they are
reported by others (e.g., parents, other family members,
teachers, peers) who have known the person for significant
periods of time.
Adolescent‐Onset
Subtype
Callous‐Unemotional
Type
Proposed Specifier for Conduct Disorder for the DSM-V:
“With Significant Callous-Unemotional Traits”
 Lack of Remorse or Guilt: Does not feel bad or guilty when
he/she does something wrong (except if expressing remorse
when caught and/or facing punishment
 Callous-Lack of Empathy: Disregards and is unconcerned
about the feelings of others.
 Unconcerned about Performance: Does not show concern
about poor/problematic performance at school, work, or in
other important activities.
 Shallow or Deficient Affect: Does not express feelings or
show emotions to others, except in ways that seem shallow or
superficial (e.g., emotions are not consistent with actions; can
turn emotions “on” or “off” quickly) or when they are used for
gain (e.g., to manipulate or intimidate others).
15
11/28/2011
ICD -11: Emotional-interpersonal deficit
syndrome (Psychopathy)
The key features of emotional-interpersonal deficit syndrome
are:
lack of sensitivity to the feelings of others and
a lack of concern for others’ distress.
In addition, there is often a failure to show the person’s own
feelings or emotions in most circumstances, lack of remorse,
shame or guilt over their own behaviour (unless prompted by
being apprehended); marked egocentricity, limited capacity for
loving relationships and a relative indifference to the probability
of punishment for his or her actions. These features are usually
evident from middle childhood and often (but not invariably)
persist into adult life.
16
11/28/2011
Evaluation of Functional Family Therapy for
Adolescents with CU Traits
White, Frick, Lawing, & Bauer, 2010
 134 arrested adolescents referred to CMH for
FFT
 Ages 11 - 17 (Mn= 15.34; SD= 1.34)
 72% male / 59% African-American
 Offense type:
45% status
22% violent
19% property
6% drug
17
11/28/2011
Evaluation of Functional Family Therapy for
Adolescents with CU Traits
Evaluation of Functional Family Therapy for
Adolescents with CU Traits
White, Frick, Lawing, & Bauer, 2010
Emotional
Symptoms
Relations w Parents
Interpersonal Aggression
Relations
White, Frick, Lawing, & Bauer, 2010
Conduct
Problems
Emotional
Symptoms
Pre‐Tx
.41 ***
‐.41 **
‐.34 **
.62 **
.64 **
Pre‐Tx
Post‐TX
.23 *
‐.38 **
‐.31 **
.45 **
.36 **
Post‐TX
TX Change
TX Change
Post‐TX
‐.24 * (‐.09)
‐.02 (‐17)
‐.40 ** (.15)
‐.27 ** (.02)
Youth –
COM
Parent –
COM
.07 (‐.16)
Therapist COM
Sessions Attended
Treatment Drop‐Out
‐.21 *
‐.28 **
‐.16
‐.08
.13
Relations w Parents
Interpersonal Aggression
Relations
Parent –
COM
Therapist COM
‐.24 * Youth –
COM
Post‐TX
Conduct
Problems
‐.40 ** ‐.27 ** Sessions Attended
Treatment Drop‐Out
‐.08
.13
Correlations are with CU Traits; treatment change measured by subtracting post‐
treatment scores from pre‐treatment scores; correlations in parenthesis are partial correlations controlling for pre‐treatment scores; COM=Client Outcome Measure; * p <.05 ; ** p < .01
Correlations are with CU Traits; treatment change measured by subtracting post‐
treatment scores from pre‐treatment scores; correlations in parenthesis are partial correlations controlling for pre‐treatment scores; COM=Client Outcome Measure; * p <.05 ; ** p < .01
Evaluation of Functional Family Therapy for
Adolescents with CU Traits
Evaluation of Functional Family Therapy for
Adolescents with CU Traits
White, Frick, Lawing, & Bauer, 2010
Emotional
Symptoms
White, Frick, Lawing, & Bauer, 2010
Relations w Parents
Interpersonal Aggression
Relations
Conduct
Problems
Pre‐Tx
.41 ***
‐.41 **
‐.34 **
.62 **
.64 **
Post‐TX
.23 *
‐.38 **
‐.31 **
.45 **
.36 **
Youth –
COM
Parent –
COM
Therapist COM
‐.21 *
‐.28 **
‐.16
TX Change
Post‐TX
Sessions Attended
Treatment Drop‐Out
Correlations are with CU Traits; treatment change measured by subtracting post‐
treatment scores from pre‐treatment scores; correlations in parenthesis are partial correlations controlling for pre‐treatment scores; COM=Client Outcome Measure; * p <.05 ; ** p < .01
Base Rate
Priors CP
CU DURING TREATMENT
All charges
48%
1.238 **
.995
1.029
Violent charges 15%
1.221 **
.949 *
1.165 **
6 MONTH POST
All charges
42%
1.100 *
1.004 1.035
Violent charges 14%
1.118 *
.997
1.082a
12 MONTH POST
All charges
63%
1.072
Violent charges 22%
1.134 *
1.005
1.013
.998
1.032
Coefficients are odds ratios from logistic regression analyses; a p = .057; * p < .05; *** P < .01
18