Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jul 30;5(2):e12266.
doi: 10.1002/jcv2.12266. eCollection 2025 Jun.

Maltreatment and parenting in youth with primary and secondary callous-unemotional traits: Anxiety matters

Jessica J Todorov  1 , Gregor Kohls  2 , Ruth Pauli  1 , Jack Rogers  3 , Anka Bernhard  4 , Katharina Ackermann  4 , Nora M Raschle  5 , Jules R Dugre  1 , Aranzazu Fernandez-Rivas  6 , Miguel Angel Gonzalez-Torres  6 , Amaia Hervas  7 , Areti Smaragdi  8 , Karen Gonzalez  9 , Ágnes Vetró  10 , Dimitris Dikeos  11 , Arne Popma  12 , Christina Stadler  13 , Kerstin Konrad  14   15 , Christine M Freitag  4 , Graeme Fairchild  16 , Rory T Devine  17 , Stephane A De Brito  1   3   17   18
Affiliations

Maltreatment and parenting in youth with primary and secondary callous-unemotional traits: Anxiety matters

Jessica J Todorov et al. JCPP Adv. .

Abstract

Background: Youth with conduct disorder (CD) and high callous-unemotional (CU) traits are not a homogenous group and can be disaggregated into primary and secondary subgroups. However, there are inconsistencies in defining primary and secondary subgroups, with some studies using anxiety, others using maltreatment and still others using both features to identify subgroups. There is a paucity of work comparing primary and secondary subgroups with typically developing (TD) youth on experiences of maltreatment and parenting as well as a lack of studies investigating sex differences.

Methods: In a large sample of TD youth (n = 946, 66% female) and youth with CD (n = 885, 60% female), we used latent profile analysis in youth with CD aged between 9 and 18 years to address four aims: (i) to demonstrate how primary and secondary subgroup membership differs when anxiety, maltreatment, or both are used as continuous indicators, (ii) to compare primary and secondary subgroups with TD youth on abuse and neglect measures, and (iii) to compare primary and secondary subgroups with TD youth on parenting experiences, and (iv) to examine whether the results were consistent across sexes.

Results: Anxiety without maltreatment yielded the best fitting and most theoretically interpretable classification of primary and secondary subgroups across both sexes (Bayesian information criterion = 17832.33, Entropy = 0.75, Lo-Mendell-Rubin: p < 0.01). Compared with TD youth, youth with primary and secondary CU traits experienced greater levels of abuse and neglect (p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.04-0.16) and maladaptive parenting practices (p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.04-0.13). Youth with primary and secondary CU traits were equally high on levels of abuse, neglect, and maladaptive parenting (all p values >0.05).

Conclusions: We provide evidence that anxiety and maltreatment cannot be used interchangeably to identify youth with primary versus secondary CU traits. Anxiey yielded the best fitting and most theoretically interpretable classifications across both sexes. Our results signify the need for researchers and clinicians to adopt a unified approach to defining primary and secondary subgroups of CU traits using anxiety in both sexes.

Keywords: FemNAT‐CD; anxiety; callous‐unemotional traits; conduct disorder; maltreatment; parenting; primary and secondary CU traits.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Christina Stadler receives royalties for books on ODD/CD, Christine M. Freitag receives royalties for books on ASD and ADHD.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
(A) Main continuous indicators (B) maltreatment (C) parenting.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. American Psychiatric Association . (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM‐5‐TR (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Association.
    1. Andershed, N. A. , Kerr, M. , Stattin, H. , & Levander, S. (2002). Psychopathic traits in non‐referred youths: A new assessment tool. In Blauuw E. & Sheridan L. (Eds.), Psychopaths: Current international perspectives (pp. 131–158). Elsevier.
    1. Backhaus, S. , Leijten, P. , Meinck, F. , & Gardner, F. (2023). Different instruments, same content? A systematic comparison of child maltreatment and harsh parenting instruments. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(5), 3546–3563. 10.1177/15248380221134290 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baldwin, J. R. , Reuben, A. , Newbury, J. B. , & Danese, A. (2019). Agreement between prospective and retrospective measures of childhood maltreatment: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. JAMA Psychiatry, 76(6), 584–593. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.0097 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bégin, V. , Déry, M. , & Le Corff, Y. (2021). Variants of psychopathic traits follow distinct trajectories of clinical features among children with conduct problems. Research Child Adolescent Psychopathology, 49(6), 775–788. 10.1007/s10802-021-00775-3 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources