Several studies have investigated the predictive validity of the Hare Psychopathy Checklists (PCL); however, the majority have used North American samples. The PCL can inform important decisions about people’s futures and therefore it is imperative to validate its psychometric properties within the jurisdictions it is used, particularly for Indigenous and non-European populations. In New Zealand, Botha and Polaschek (2023) concluded that the PCL: Screening Version (PCL:SV; Hart et al., 1999) demonstrated cross-ethnic predictive invariance using traditional discrimination statistics. The present study extends on this research by reporting on a novel statistic for assessing fairness in risk tool performance, cross-area under the curve (xAUC), as well as error rate balance and predictive parity of the PCL:SV for the prediction of any and violent 5-year recidivism outcomes in European and Māori subsamples (n = 288). In contrast to previous research, we found discrepancies, between European and Māori, on xAUC, error rate balance, and predictive parity.
AshfordL. J.SpivakB. L.OgloffJ. R.ShepherdS. M. (2022). The cross-cultural fairness of the LS/RNR: An Australian analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 46(3), 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000486
3.
AshfordL. J.SpivakB. L.ShepherdS. M. (2021). Racial fairness in violence risk instruments: A review of the literature. Psychology, Crime & Law, 28(1), 911–941. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2021.1972108
4.
BerkR.HeidariH.JabbariS.KearnsM.RothA. (2021). Fairness in criminal justice risk assessments: The state of the art. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(1), 3–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118782533
5.
BothaR.NicholsT. (2024). Process evaluation of the special treatment units for violent offending (STU:VO): Within-treatment change. Unpublished manuscripts.
6.
BothaR.PolaschekD. L. L. (2023). Predictive validity of the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV) in a post-release sample of New Zealand male prisoners. Psychological Services. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000885
7.
BothaR.PolaschekD. L. L.WilsonN. (2024). Measurement invariance and convergent validity of the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV) across Indigenous Māori and European samples in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Manuscript submitted for publication.
8.
ChouldechovaA. (2017). Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. Big Data, 5(2), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1089/big.2016.0047
9.
CookeD. J.MichieC.HartS. D.HareR. D. (1999). Evaluating the screening version of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (PCL:SV): An item response theory analysis. Psychological Assessment, 11(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.11.1.3
10.
DayA.TamateaA. J.CaseyS.GeiaL. (2018). Assessing violence risk with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders: Considerations for forensic practice. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 25(3), 452–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2018.1467804
11.
DeSorcyD. R.OlverM. E.WormithJ. S. (2017). Working alliance and psychopathy: Linkages to treatment outcome in a sample of treated sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(7–8), 1739–1760. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260517698822
12.
EckhouseL.LumK.Conti-CookC.CiccoliniJ. (2019). Layers of bias: A unified approach for understanding problems with risk assessment. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 46(2), 355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818820890
13.
EdensJ. F.PetrilaJ.KelleyS. E. (2018). Legal and ethical issues in the assessment and treatment of psychopathy In PatrickC. J. (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (2nd ed., pp. 732–751). The Guilford Press.
14.
Ewert v. Canada (2015) FC 1093.
15.
FergussonD. M.HorwoodL. J.Swain-CampbellN. (2003). Ethnicity and criminal convictions: Results of a 21-year longitudinal study. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 36(3), 354–367. https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.36.3.354
16.
FoxB. H.JenningsW. G.FarringtonD. P. (2015). Bringing psychopathy into developmental and life-course criminology theories and research. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(4), 274–289.
17.
FreedmanD. (2001). False prediction of future dangerousness: Error rates and Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 29, 89–95. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3454287.3454596
18.
HanleyJ. A.McNeilB. J. (1983). A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology, 148(3), 839–843. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.148.3.6878708
19.
HareR. D.ClarkD.GrannM.ThorntonD. (2000). Psychopathy and the predictive validity of the PCL-R: An international perspective. Behavioural Sciences & the Law, 18(5), 623–645. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0798(200010)18:5<623::aid-bsl409>3.0.co;2-w
20.
HareR. D. (2003). Manual for the revised psychopathy checklist (2nd ed.). Multi-Health Systems.
21.
HartS. D. (2016). Culture and violence risk assessment: The case of Ewert v. Canada. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 3(2), 76–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/tam0000068
22.
HartS. D.CoxD. N.HareR. D. (1995). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version. Multi-Health Systems.
KallusN.ZhouA. (2019). The fairness of risk scores beyond classification: Bipartite ranking and the xAUC metric. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1902.05826
25.
KleinbergJ.MullainathanS.RaghavanM. (2016). Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores. Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1609.05807
26.
LowderE. M.MorrisonM. M.KronerD. G.DesmaraisS. L. (2019). Racial bias and LSI-R assessments in probation sentencing and outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(2), 210–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818789977
27.
NettlebeckA.SmandychR. (2010). Policing Indigenous peoples on two colonial frontiers: Australia’s mounted police and Canada’s North-West mounted police. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43(2), 356–375. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1375/acri.43.2.356
28.
NeumannC. S.HareR. D. (2008). Psychopathic traits in a large community sample: Links to violence, alcohol use, and intelligence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76(5), 893–899.
29.
OlverM. E.NeumannC. S.SewallL. A.LewisK.HareR. D.WongS. C. P. (2018). A comprehensive examination of the psychometric properties of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in a Canadian multisite sample of Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders. Psychological Assessment, 30(6), 779–792. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000533
30.
OlverM. E.StockdaleK. C.HelmusL. M.WoodsP.TermeerJ.PrinceJ. (2024). Too risky to use, or too risky not to? Lessons learned from over 30 years of research on forensic risk assessment with Indigenous persons. Psychological Bulletin, 150(5), 487–553. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000414
31.
OlverM. E.StockdaleK. C.NeumannC. S.HareR. D.MokrosA.Baskin-SommersA.BrandE.FolinoJ.GaconoC.GrayN. S.KiehlK.KnightR.Leon-MayerE.LoganM.MeloyJ. R.RoyS.SalekinR. T.SnowdenR.ThomsonN.. . .YoonD. (2020). Reliability and validity of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in the assessment of risk for institutional violence: A cautionary note on DeMatteo et al. (2020). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 26(4), 490–510. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000256
32.
OlverM. E.StockdaleK. C.WormithJ. S. (2014). Thirty years of research on the level of service scales: A meta-analytic examination of predictive accuracy and sources of variability. Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 156. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035080
33.
PerryB. (2006). Nobody trusts them! Under- and over-policing Native American communities. Critical Criminology, 14, 411–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-006-9007-z
34.
ShepherdS. M.AdamsY.McEntyreE.WalkerR. (2014). Violence risk assessment in Australian aboriginal offender populations: A review of the literature. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(3), 281–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000017
35.
ShepherdS. M.Lewis-FernandezR. (2016). Forensic risk assessment and cultural diversity: Contemporary challenges and future directions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(4), 427. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000102
36.
SinghJ. P.GrannM.FazelS. (2011). A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: A systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(3), 499–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.11.009
37.
SpruitA.van der PutC.GubbelsJ.BindelsA. (2017). Age differences in the severity, impact and relative importance of dynamic risk factors for recidivism. Journal of Criminal Justice, 50, 69–77.
38.
TaberK. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48, 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
39.
VitaccoM. J.NeumannC. S.JacksonR. L. (2005). Testing a four-factor model of psychopathy and its association with ethnicity, gender, intelligence, and violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 466–476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.466
40.
WilsonH. A.GutierrezL. (2014). Does one size fit all? A meta-analysis examining the predictive ability of the Level of Service Inventory (LSI) with Aboriginal offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(2), 196–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813500958
41.
WilsonN. J. (2003). The utility of the Psychopathy Checklist-Screening Version for predicting serious violent recidivism in a New Zealand offender sample [Thesis, Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)]. The University of Waikato. https://hdl.handle.net/10289/13978
