Reliability and validity of the psychopathy checklist-revised in the assessment of risk for institutional violence: a cautionary note on DeMatteo et al. (2020)
| Autor: | Kent A. Kiehl, Nicholas D. Thomson, Keira C. Stockdale, Elizabeth León-Mayer, Scott Tillem, Craig S. Neumann, Jorge Oscar Folino, Mark E. Olver, J. Reid Meloy, Nicola S. Gray, Sandeep Roy, Robert D. Hare, Eddy Brand, Andreas Mokros, Arielle R. Baskin-Sommers, Dahlnym Yoon, Raymond A. Knight, Carl B. Gacono, Robert Jefferson Snowden, Matthew Logan, Michael J. Vitacco, Randall T. Salekin |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
PCL-R
Predictive validity Psychopathy Checklist Sociology and Political Science Social Psychology institutional violence Psychopathy Applied psychology Risk management tools Capital sentencing medicine.disease predictive validity Argument Capital (economics) Ciencias Médicas medicine Relevance (law) Risk assessment Psychology Law Psiquiatría field reliability |
| ISSN: | 1076-8971 |
| Popis: | A group of 12 authors (GA) shared a statement of concern (SoC) warning against the use of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991, 2003) to assess risk for serious institutional violence in US capital sentencing cases (DeMatteo et al., 2020). Notably, the SoC was not confined to capital sentencing issues, but included institutional violence in general. Central to the arguments presented in the SoC was that the PCL-R has poor predictive validity for institutional violence and also inadequate field reliability. The GA also identified important issues about the fallibility and inappropriate use of any clinical/forensic assessments, questionable evaluator qualifications, and their effects on capital sentencing decisions. However, as a group of forensic academics, researchers, and clinicians, we are concerned that the PCL-R represents a psycholegal red herring, while the SoC did not address critical legislative, systemic, and evaluator/rating issues that affect all risk assessment tools. We contend that the SoC’s literature review was selective and that the resultant opinions about potential uses and misuses of the PCL-R were ultimately misleading. We focus our response on the evidence and conclusions proffered by the GA concerning the use of the PCL-R in capital and other cases. We provide new empirical findings regarding the PCL-R’s predictive validity and field reliability to further demonstrate its relevance for institutional violence risk assessment and management. We further demonstrate why the argument that group data cannot be relevant for single-case assessments is erroneous. Recommendations to support the ethical and appropriate use of the PCL-R for risk assessment are provided. Facultad de Ciencias Médicas |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|