This study examined differential associations between phenotypic domains of the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy (boldness, meanness, and disinhibition; Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009), as assessed by the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (Patrick, 2010b), and the five-factor model (FFM) of normal personality, as indexed by the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Spanish version, Costa & McCrae, 1999), in 349 undergraduates (96 men). Distinctive patterns of correlations for psychopathy components did not differ significantly across gender, although relations between Meanness and Agreeableness were stronger for men than for women. Our findings are largely consistent with the conceptualization of psychopathy in terms of FFM constructs and provide discriminant evidence in support of all 3 triarchic domains. Thus, meanness is marked by low Agreeableness and some degree of low Conscientiousness, whereas disinhibition is characterized both by low Conscientiousness and low Agreeableness along with high Neuroticism and Extraversion. Notably, the constellation of low Neuroticism, high Extraversion, and high Openness, with facets of low Agreeableness, supports the idea that boldness encompasses some adaptive features of psychological adjustment while depicting the interpersonal features of psychopathy.

Adaptación eapañola del "International Affective Picture System" (IAPS). Tercera parte.

Previous studies have shown that most English-speaking children with language difficulties show academic difficulties during their schooling. The present study aimed to describe the academic achievement of children speaking Spanish and Catalan with developmental language disorder (DLD) during their primary education and to predict their academic outcomes using several processing skills assessed at the beginning of their schooling. To this end, we followed 28 children during their schooling (6–12 years of age). Participants were divided into two groups, one with DLD (n = 14) and a control group (n = 14) paired by age, gender, socio-economic status (SES), family language (L1), and classroom. All participants were assessed through different processing skills with the Spanish version of the NEPSY at the beginning of their schooling (age 6): attention (visual attention, auditory attention, and response set), phonological awareness, verbal short-term memory (sentence repetition, and narrative memory), access to language (semantic verbal fluency and rapid naming), and language comprehension (comprehension of verbal commands). At the end of primary education, schools reported the official academic marks at the 1st cycle (6–8 years), 2nd cycle (8–10 years) and 3rd cycle (10–12 years). Direct scores of the processing skills and academic results were used for statistical analyses. Results showed that children with DLD had more frequent grade retention, and their academic marks were significantly lower than those of their peers in all the cycles and for all academic subjects with a high language dependency (all except physical education and mathematics). Those subjects with lower language dependence did not show significant differences (physical education and mathematics). Rapid naming accounted for most of the variance of academic outcomes, followed by phonological awareness, and language comprehension when both groups were taken together. Only rapid naming accounted for academic results in the DLD group and phonological awareness did so for the control group. In sum, children with DLD experienced more academic difficulties during their primary education. Those children (with and without DLD) who experienced difficulties not only with rapid naming but also with phonological awareness and oral language comprehension at the beginning of their schooling showed a higher probability of academic failure.

This study uses several bibliometric indices to explore the temporal course of publication trends regarding the bilingual advantage in executive control over a ten-year window. These indices include the number of published papers, numbers of citations, and the journal impact factor. According to the information available in their abstracts, studies were classified into one of four categories: supporting, ambiguous towards, not mentioning, or challenging the bilingual advantage. Results show that the number of papers challenging the bilingual advantage increased notably in 2014 and 2015. Both the average impact factor and the accumulated citations as of June 2016 were equivalent between categories. However, of the studies published in 2014, those that challenge the bilingual advantage accumulated more citations in June 2016 than those supporting it. Our findings offer evidence-based bibliometric information about the current state of the literature and suggest a change in publication trends regarding the literature on the bilingual advantage.