TY - JOUR
T1 - Reliability and validity of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in the assessment of risk for institutional violence
T2 - A cautionary note on DeMatteo et al. (2020).
AU - Olver, Mark E.
AU - Stockdale, Keira C.
AU - Neumann, Craig S.
AU - Hare, Robert D.
AU - Mokros, Andreas
AU - Baskin-Sommers, Arielle
AU - Brand, Eddy
AU - Folino, Jorge
AU - Gacono, Carl
AU - Gray, Nicola S.
AU - Kiehl, Kent
AU - Knight, Raymond
AU - Leon-Mayer, Elizabeth
AU - Logan, Matt
AU - Meloy, J. Reid
AU - Roy, Sandeep
AU - Salekin, Randall T.
AU - Snowden, Robert
AU - Thomson, Nicholas
AU - Tillem, Scott
AU - Vitacco, Michael
AU - Yoon, Dahlnym
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 American Psychological Association
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - A group of 13 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 U.S. 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 sufficiently address critical legislative, systemic, and evaluator/rating issues that affect all forensic assessment tools. We contend that the SoC’s literature review was selective and that some of the resultant opinions about uses and misuses of the PCL-R were potentially 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.
AB - A group of 13 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 U.S. 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 sufficiently address critical legislative, systemic, and evaluator/rating issues that affect all forensic assessment tools. We contend that the SoC’s literature review was selective and that some of the resultant opinions about uses and misuses of the PCL-R were potentially 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.
KW - PCL-R
KW - capital sentencing
KW - field reliability
KW - institutional violence
KW - predictive validity
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85098545931&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85098545931&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1037/law0000256
DO - 10.1037/law0000256
M3 - Letter
AN - SCOPUS:85098545931
SN - 1076-8971
VL - 26
SP - 490
EP - 510
JO - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
JF - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
IS - 4
ER -