We compared the predictive validity of Psychopathy Checklist- Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003) scores assigned to 80 sexual offenders by two trained graduate students (using file review) and at least one licensed clinician (using file review and interview). There was more variability among the scores assigned by the licensed clinicians than those assigned by the graduate students, and the scores assigned by licensed clinicians were stronger predictors of future offending than those assigned by the graduate students. Findings raise questions about a possible association between clinical experience and PCL-R score validity and highlight the need for more research in this area.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BoccacciniM. T.MurrieD. C.RufinoK. A.GardnerB. O. (2014). Evaluator differences in PCL-R factor and facet level scoring. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 337–345. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000069
2.
BoccacciniM.T.TurnerD.MurrieD.C. (2008). Do some evaluators report consistently higher or lower scores on the PCL-R?: Findings from a statewide sample of sexually violent predator evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14, 262–283. doi: 10.1037/a00114523
3.
BoccacciniM.T.TurnerD.MurrieD. C.RufinoK. A. (2012). Do PCL-R scores from state or defense experts best predict future misconduct among civilly committed sex offenders?Law and Human Behavior, 36, 159–169. doi: 10.1037/h0093949
4.
BrammerR. (2002). Effects of experience and training on diagnostic accuracy. Psychological Assessment, 14, 110–113. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.14.1.110
5.
DeLongE.R.DeLongD.M.Clarke-PearsonD.L. (1988). Comparing the area under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics, 44, 837–845.
6.
DeMatteoD.EdensJ. F.GallowayM.CoxJ.Toney SmithS.KollerJ. P. (2014). Investigating the role of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in United States case law. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 96–107. doi: 10.1037/a0035452
7.
de VogelV.de RuiterC. (2006). Structured professional judgment of violence risk in forensic clinical practice: A prospective study into the predictive validity of the Dutch HCR-20. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 12, 321–336. doi: 10.1080/10683160600569029
8.
EdensJ. F.CampbellJ. S.WeirJ. M. (2007). Youth psychopathy and criminal recidivism: A meta-analysis of the psychopathy checklist measures. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 53–75. doi: 10.1007/s10979-006-9019-y
9.
EdensJ. F.CoxJ.Toney SmithS.deMatteoD.SörmanK. (2015). How reliable are Psychopathy checklist-Revised scores in Canadian criminal trials? A case law review. Psychological Assessment, 27, 447–456. Doi: 10.1037/pas0000048
10.
GarbH. N. (1998). Studying the clinician: Judgment research and clinical assessment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
11.
GarbH. N.BoyleP. A. (2014). Understanding why some clinicians use pseudoscientific methods: Findings from research on clinical judgment. In LilienfeldS.O.LynnS. J.LohrJ. M. (Eds.). Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 19–41). New York, NY: Guilford.
12.
GuyL. S.EdensJ. F.AnthonyC.DouglasK. S. (2005). Does psychopathy predict institutional misconduct among adults? A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1056–1064. doi: 10.1037/0022-006x.73.6.1056
13.
HareR. D. (2003). Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revise manual (2nd ed.). Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health System.
14.
HarrisP. B.BoccacciniM. T.MurrieD. C. (2015). Rater differences in psychopathy measure scoring and predictive validity. Law and Human Behavior, 39, 321–331. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000115
15.
HartS. D.CoxD. N.HareR. D. (1995). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV). Toronto, Canada: Multi-Heath Systems.
16.
HawesS. M.BoccacciniM.T.MurrieD. C. (2013). Psychopathy and the combination of psychopathy and sexual deviance as predictors of sexual recidivism: Meta-analytic findings using the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Psychological Assessment, 25, 233–243. doi: 10.1037/a0030391
17.
JacksonR. L.RogersR.ShumanD. W. (2004). The adequacy and accuracy of sexually violent predator evaluations: Contextualized risk assessment in clinical practice. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 3, 115–129.
18.
JeonH.BoccacciniM. T.RufinoK.JoE.JangH. (March). Do Psychopathy Checklist scores from experienced clinicians outperform those from less experienced clinicians?Poster presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, San Diego, CA.
19.
KennealyP. J.SkeemJ. L.WaltersG. D.CampJ. (2010). Do core interpersonal and affective traits of PCL-R psychopathy interact with antisocial behavior and disinhibition to predict violence?Psychological Assessment, 23, 569–580. doi: 10.1037/a0019618
20.
KnightR. A.ThorntonD. (2007). Evaluating and improving risk assessment schemes for sexual recidivism: A long-term follow-up of convicted sexual offenders (U.S. Department of Justice Report, Document No. 217618). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
21.
LeisticoA. M.SalekinR. T.DeCosterJ.RogersR. (2008). A large-scale meta-analysis relating the hare measures of psychopathy to antisocial conduct. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 28–45. doi: 10.1007/sl10979-007-9096-6
22.
McNeilD. E.GregoryA. L.LamJ. N.BinderR. L.SullivanG. R. (2003). Utility of decision support tools for assessing acute violence risk. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 945–953. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.71.5.945
23.
MillerH. A.KimonisE. R.OttoR. K.KlineS. M.WassermanA. L. (2012). Reliability of risk assessment measures used in Sexually Violent Predator proceedings. Psychological Assessment, 24, 944–953. doi: 10.1037/a0028411
24.
MillerD. J.SpenglerE. S.SpenglerP. M. (2015). A meta-analysis of confidence and judgment accuracy in clinical decision making. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62, 553–567. doi: 10.1037/cou0000105
25.
MonahanJ.SteadmanH.SilverE.AppelbaumP.RobbinsP.MulveyE.RothL.GrissoT.BanksS. (2001). Rethinking Risk Assessment: The MacArthur Study of Mental Disorder and Violence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
26.
MurrieD.C.BoccacciniM.T.CapertonJ.D.RufinoK.A. (2012). Field validity of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in sex offender risk assessment. Psychological Assessment, 24, 524–529. doi: 10.1037/a0026015
27.
MurrieD.C.BoccacciniM.T.JohnsonJ.T.JankeC. (2008). Does interrater (dis)agreement on Psychopathy checklist scores in sexually violent predator trials suggest partisan allegiance in forensic evaluations?Law and Human Behavior, 32, 352–362. doi 10.1007/s10979-007-9097-5
28.
MurrieD.C.BoccacciniM.T.TurnerD.MeeksM.WoodsC.TusseyC. (2009). Rater (dis)agreement on risk assessment measures in sexually violent predator proceedings: Evidence of adversarial allegiance in forensic evaluation?Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15, 19–53. doi: 10.1037/a0014897
29.
NealT. M. S.GrissoT. (2014). Assessment practices and expert judgment methods in forensic psychology and psychiatry: An international snapshot. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 1406–1421. doi: 10.1177/0093854814548449
30.
OlverM. E.WongS. C. (2006). Psychopathy, sexual deviance, and recidivism among sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 65–82. doi:10.1007/s11194-006-9006-3
31.
RufinoK. A.BoccacciniM. T.HawesS.MurrieD. C. (2012). When experts disagreed, who was correct? A comparison of PCL-R scores from independent raters and opposing forensic expert. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 527–537. doi:10.1037/h0093988
32.
SinghJ. P.DesmaraisS. L.HurducasC.Arbach-LucioniK.CondemarinC.DeanK. (2014). International perspectives on the practical application of violent risk assessment: A global survey of 44 countries. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13, 193–206. doi: 10.1080/14999013.2014.922141
33.
SpainS. E.DouglasK. S.PoythressN. G.EpsteinM. (2004). The relationship between psychopathic features, violence, and treatment outcome: The comparison of three youth psychopathic measures. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22, 85–102. doi: 10.1002/bsl.576
34.
SpenglerP. M.PilipisL. A. (2015). A comprehensive meta-reanalysis of the robustness of the experience-accuracy effect in clinical judgment. Counseling Psychologist, 62, 360–378. doi:10.1177/cou0000065
35.
TeoA. R.HolleyS. R.LearyM.McNeilD. E. (2012). The relationship between level of training and accuracy of violence risk assessment. Psychiatric Services, 63, 1089–1094. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201200019
36.
VilojenJ. L.McLachlanK.VincentG. (2012). Assessing violence risk and psychopathy in juvenile and adult offenders: A survey of clinical practices. Assessment, 17, 377–395. doi: 10.1177/1073191109359587
37.
WaltersG. D.KnightR. A.GrannM.DahleK. P. (2008). Incremental validity of the Psychopathy Checklist facet scores: Predicting release outcome in six samples. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117, 396–405. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.117.2.396
38.
WaltersG. D.KronerD. G.DeMatteoD.LocklairB. R. (2014). The impact of base ate utilization and clinical experience on the accuracy of judgments made with the HCR-20. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 14, 288–301. doi: 10.1080/15228932.2014.941726
39.
YangM.WongS. C. P.CoidJ. (2010). The efficacy of violence prediction” A meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 740–767. doi: 10.1037/a0020473
