A clinical investigation of malingering and psychopathy in hospitalised insanity acquitees

This study compares Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) scores, DSM-Ill-R diagnoses, and select behavioral indices between hospitalized insanity acquittees (N = 18) and hospitalized insanity acquittees who successfully malingered (N = 18). The malingerers were significantly more likely to have a history of murder or rape, carry a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder or sexual sadism, and produce greater PCL-R factor 1, factor 2, and total scores than insanity acquittees who did not malinger. The malingerers were also significantly more likely to be verbally or physically assaultive, require specialized treatment plans to control their aggression, have sexual relations with female staff, deal drugs, and be considered an escape risk within the forensic hospital. These findings are discussed within the context of insanity statutes and the relevance of malingering, psychopathy, and treatability to future policy concerning the disposition of insanity acquittees

The PCL–R and capital sentencing: A commentary on “Death is different” DeMatteo et al. (2020a).

DeMatteo et al. (2020a) published a Statement in this journal declaring that the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) “cannot and should not” be used in U.S. capital-sentencing cases to assess risk for serious institutional violence. Their stated concerns were the PCL-R’s “imperfect interrater reliability,” its “variability in predictive validity,” and its prejudicial effects on the defendant. In a Cautionary Note, we (Olver et al., 2020) raised questions about the Statement’s evaluation of the PCL-R’s psychometric properties, presented new data, including a meta-meta-analysis, and argued that the evidence did not support the Statement’s declaration that the PCL-R “cannot” be used in high stakes contexts. In their reply, titled “Death is Different,” DeMatteo et al. (2020b) concurred with several points in our Cautionary Note, disputed others, asserted that we had misunderstood or mischaracterized their Statement, and dismissed our new data and comments as irrelevant to the Statement’s purpose. This perspective on our commentary is inimical to balanced academic discourse. In this article, we contend that DeMatteo et al. (2020b) underestimated the reliability and predictive validity of PCL-R ratings, overestimated the centrality of the PCL-R in sentencing decisions, and underplayed the importance of other factors. Most of their arguments depended on sources other than capital cases, including mock trials, Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) hearings, and studies that included the prediction of general violence. We conclude that the rationale for the bold “cannot and should not” decree is open to debate and in need of research in real-life venues

Reliability and validity of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in the assessment of risk for institutional violence: A cautionary note on DeMatteo et al. (2020).

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

Predicting violent infractions in a Swiss state penitentiary: A replication study of the PCL-R in a population of sex and violent offenders

BACKGROUND: Research conducted with forensic psychiatric patients found moderate correlations between violence in institutions and psychopathy. It is unclear though, whether the PCL-R is an accurate instrument for predicting aggressive behavior in prisons. Results seem to indicate that the instrument is better suited for predicting verbal rather than physical aggression of prison inmates. METHODS: PCL-R scores were assessed for a sample of 113 imprisoned sex and violent offenders in Switzerland. Logistic regression analyses were used to estimate physical and verbal aggression as a function of the PCL-R sum score. Additionally, stratified analyses were conducted for Factor 1 and 2. Infractions were analyzed as to their motives and consequences. RESULTS: The mean score of the PCL-R was 12 points. Neither the relationship between physical aggression and the sum score of the PCL-R, nor the relationship between physical aggression and either of the two factors of the PCL-R were significant. Both the sum score and Factor 1 predicted the occurrence of verbal aggression (AUC=0.70 and 0.69), while Factor 2 did not. CONCLUSION: Possible explanations are discussed for the weak relationship between PCL-R scores and physically aggressive behavior during imprisonment. Some authors have discussed whether the low base rate of violent infractions can be considered an explanation for the non-significant relation between PCL-R-score and violence. The base rate in this study, however, with 27%, was not low. It is proposed that the distinction between reactive and instrumental motives of institutional violence must be considered when examining the usefulness of the PCL-R in predicting in-prison physical aggressive behavior

Psychopathic traits and offender characteristics – a nationwide consecutive sample of homicidal male adolescents

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The aim of the study was to evaluate psychopathy-like personality traits in a nationwide consecutive sample of adolescent male homicide offenders and to compare the findings with those of a randomly sampled adult male homicide offender group. A further aim was to investigate associations between psychopathic traits and offender and offence characteristics in adolescent homicides.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Forensic psychiatric examination reports and crime reports of all 15 to19- year- old male Finnish offenders who had been subjected to a forensic psychiatric examination and convicted for a homicide during 1995–2004 were collected (n = 57). A random sample of 57 adult male homicide offenders was selected as a comparison group. Offence and offender characteristics were collected from the files and a file-based assessment of psychopathic traits was performed using the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) by trained raters.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>No significant differences existed between the adolescents and adults in PCL-R total scores, factor 2 (social deviance) scores, or in facets 3 (lifestyle) and 4 (antisocial). Adults scored significantly higher on factor 1 (interpersonal/affective) and facets 1 (interpersonal) and 2 (affective). The adolescent group was divided into two subgroups according to PCL-R total scores. One in five homicidal male adolescents met criteria for psychopathic personality using a PCL-R total score of 26 or higher. These boys significantly more often had a crime history before the index homicide, more frequently used excessive violence during the index homicide, more rarely lived with both parents until 16 years of age, had more institutional or foster home placements in childhood, had more school difficulties, more often had received special education, and, more often had contact with mental health services prior to age 18 years than boys scoring low on the PCL-R. They also more often had parental criminal history as well as homicide history of parents or near relatives than the group scoring low on the PCL-R.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Homicidal boys behaved as antisocially as the homicidal adults. The adults, however, showed more both affective and interpersonal features of psychopathy. Homicidal adolescents with psychopathy-like personality character form a special subgroup among other homicidal youngsters. Recognizing their characteristics, especially in life course development, would facilitate effective prevention and intervention efforts.</p