BackgroundSince the introduction of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-5, a limited prosocial emotion (LPE) specifier has been added to the conduct disorder (CD)... Show moreBackgroundSince the introduction of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-5, a limited prosocial emotion (LPE) specifier has been added to the conduct disorder (CD) diagnosis in addition to the age of onset specifier. It was suggested that this would identify a subgroup with severe antisocial and/or aggressive behavior with serious current and future (mental health) impairment. Research in recent years has shown that this is indeed a subgroup with severe antisocial behavior; however, mental health problems do not appear to differ from those of youth with CD without LPE. Most research to date has been cross-sectional. However, longitudinal research is urgently needed to better understand the predictive value of the LPE specifier. The aim of the current longitudinal study is to examine future offending behavior of youth with CD with compared to youth without the LPE specifier. In addition, the predictive value of the categorical LPE specifier and the dimensional LPE score will be examined beyond factors that are strongly associated with future offending (i.e., gender, age, and prior offending).MethodsAdolescents and young adults (12-25) with CD (assessed with the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children-Present and Lifetime Version [K-SADS-PL]) with (N = 61) and without (N = 75) the LPE specifier (assessed with the Callous-Unemotional [CU] dimension of the Youth Psychopathic traits Inventory [YPI]) (in line with Jambroes et al., 2016) were compared on sociodemographic characteristics, mental health problems and offending behavior. Future (general and violent) offending was based on official conviction data.ResultsOur results showed that youth with CD with and without the LPE specifier did not differ in self-reported and informant-reported mental health problems. However, youth with CD with the LPE specifier showed more offending behavior and personality pathology at baseline. In addition, the categorical LPE specifier was associated with future general offending, but not with future violent offending. The dimensional LPE score was associated with both future general and violent offending. However, after adjustment for gender, age, and prior delinquency, these associations disappeared, with the exception of the association between the dimensional LPE score and violent offending, which remained significant even after controlling for gender, age, and prior violent offending.DiscussionIn conclusion, there seems to be evidence of a relationship between limited prosocial emotions and future offending behavior in youth with CD. This relationship, however, should not be overestimated, as there are other (static) factors (e.g. gender and prior offending behavior) that also have a strong influence on future (violent) offending behavior. Still, from a clinical point of view, a dynamic factor like prosocial emotional skills is a good focus for reducing the risk of future offending behavior. Show less
In DSM 5, conduct disorder (CD) has been expanded with a new specifier ‘with Limited Prosocial Emotions’ (LPE) in addition to the age-of-onset (AoO) subtyping, and is thought to identify a severe... Show moreIn DSM 5, conduct disorder (CD) has been expanded with a new specifier ‘with Limited Prosocial Emotions’ (LPE) in addition to the age-of-onset (AoO) subtyping, and is thought to identify a severe antisocial subgroup of CD. However, research in clinical practice has been scarce. Therefore, the current study will examine differences in clinical symptoms between subtypes of CD, based on both subtyping schemes. Subsequently, it will investigate whether the LPE specifier explains unique variance in aggression, added to the AoO subtyping. A sample of 145 adolescents with CD (51 % male, mean age 15.0) from a closed treatment institution participated in this study. CD diagnoses and AoO subtype were assessed using a structured diagnostic interview. The LPE specifier was assessed using the callous–unemotional dimension of the Youth Psychopathy Traits Inventory (YPI). Self-reported proactive and reactive aggression, rule-breaking behavior and internalizing problems within the subtypes were compared. Youth with childhood-onset CD and LPE showed significantly more aggression than adolescent-onset CD without LPE (proactive aggression: F = 3.1, p < 0.05, reactive aggression: F = 3.7, p < 0.05). Hierarchical regression revealed that the LPE specifier uniquely explained 7 % of the variance in reactive aggression, additionally to the AoO subtyping. For proactive aggression, the interaction between AoO and the LPE added 4.5 % to the explained variance. Although the LPE specifier may help to identify a more aggressive subtype of CD in adolescents, the incremental utility seems to be limited. Therefore, clinical relevance of the LPE specifier in high-risk adolescent samples still needs to be investigated thoroughly. Show less
